Napa, CA – California has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, challenging President Donald Trump’s controversial tariff policies. The state’s leaders, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, argue that the president does not have the legal authority to impose tariffs, a power that they assert belongs to Congress under the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit is the latest development in a growing backlash against Trump’s use of tariffs as a tool for addressing what he claims is a trade imbalance between the United States and other countries. While Trump has defended tariffs as necessary to protect American industries, the California government contends that the economic consequences of these policies are far-reaching, threatening not only global markets but also the state’s economy, which is the largest in the nation and the fifth-largest in the world.
Newsom described the tariffs as “the worst own-goal in the history of this country,” expressing concern that the president’s economic strategy is causing unnecessary harm to American businesses, workers, and consumers. The governor warned that California could lose billions of dollars in revenue if international trade is stifled by the ongoing tariff disputes.
California’s economy, a major player in global trade, stands to be disproportionately affected by the tariffs. With an export-oriented economy, the state is highly vulnerable to trade disruptions. The lawsuit argues that Trump’s tariff policies have created economic instability that harms businesses, causes uncertainty in global markets, and negatively impacts both consumers and workers, especially in California’s key sectors like agriculture, technology, and manufacturing.
The legal challenge focuses on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump has invoked to impose levies on a wide range of imported goods. The suit contends that this law does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs, especially on a broad, sustained basis. Bonta emphasized that under the Constitution, the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs rests squarely with Congress, not the executive branch.
“We are asking the court to rein in the president and uphold the Constitution,” said Bonta. “The president is once again acting as though he is above the law, but he isn’t.”
This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of legal opposition to Trump’s policies from California, which has filed over a dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration on a variety of issues. Newsom has long been a vocal critic of the president, and his office has expressed concerns that Trump’s approach to governance represents a shift away from traditional democratic principles in favor of executive overreach.
The White House responded quickly to the lawsuit, dismissing it as a distraction from what it sees as more pressing issues facing California, including crime, homelessness, and housing affordability. A spokesperson for Trump’s administration accused Newsom of using the lawsuit as a political maneuver rather than focusing on the state’s internal challenges. The spokesperson also defended the tariffs, describing them as “historic efforts to address the national emergency of our country’s persistent goods trade deficits.”
While the lawsuit is unlikely to immediately resolve the larger issues surrounding U.S. trade policy, it signals California’s willingness to take a firm stand against the president’s actions. The case could have significant implications for the scope of executive power, as it raises important constitutional questions about the division of authority between the executive and legislative branches.
As the legal battle unfolds, all eyes will be on the courts to determine whether California’s challenge will alter the course of Trump’s tariff policies and redefine the balance of power between the branches of government. For now, California remains steadfast in its opposition to the tariffs, which it sees as detrimental to its economy and the broader national interest.