WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.
The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.
Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.
“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”
In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.
“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”
