A new chapter has unfolded in the ongoing legal battle over tariffs introduced during the Trump administration — and California is right in the middle of it.
Earlier this week, a federal judge in San Francisco officially dismissed a lawsuit filed by the State of California. The case challenged the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under emergency powers.
But while the court tossed the case on procedural grounds, the state says the fight is far from over.
What the Lawsuit Was About
The lawsuit, filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, sought to challenge the constitutionality of tariffs enacted by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
These tariffs included the controversial “Liberation Day Tariffs,” which placed a 10% duty on a wide range of imported goods — from China, Mexico, Canada, and other major trade partners.
California claimed these tariffs were more than just economically harmful — they were an overreach of presidential authority. The lawsuit argued that by bypassing Congress and invoking emergency powers to set trade policy, the executive branch had violated the Constitution.
The economic impact, according to the state, was particularly heavy for California’s ports, importers, and small businesses, which rely heavily on global trade.
Judge Dismisses Case — On a Technicality
Despite the high-stakes nature of the argument, the judge didn’t weigh in on whether the tariffs were lawful or not.
Instead, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney dismissed the case due to jurisdictional issues.
According to the ruling, California filed the case in the wrong court.
The judge noted that matters involving international trade and customs duties fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of International Trade, located in New York.
This specialized court handles most cases involving tariffs and trade disputes — not federal district courts like the one in San Francisco.
California Responds: “This Isn’t Over”
California officials aren’t backing down.
Shortly after the ruling, Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement acknowledging the dismissal but emphasizing that the ruling opens a new legal door: appeal.
“This is a procedural setback, not a final word,” Bonta said. “We believe in holding the federal government accountable for actions that hurt California’s economy.”
He confirmed that the state would file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the tariffs harmed California residents and businesses.
The goal? To revive the case — or get clarity on where it should be heard.
What Are ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs?
Among the tariffs challenged by California are the so-called Liberation Day Tariffs, rolled out during Trump’s term under his “America First” trade agenda.
These tariffs imposed a 10% duty on a wide range of imports from foreign nations deemed to have “unfair trade practices.”
Critics argue that these measures were both economically disruptive and legally shaky, relying heavily on emergency powers that had never been used in this way before.
Supporters, on the other hand, claimed the tariffs were necessary to protect American manufacturing and jobs from foreign competition.
The tariffs triggered retaliatory measures from affected countries and contributed to tense trade negotiations with allies and rivals alike.
The Bigger Legal Picture
California’s case is just one of several legal challenges launched against Trump-era trade policies.
Federal courts have already ruled in other lawsuits that some of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration exceeded executive authority.
For example, in 2023, a federal court found that certain steel and aluminum tariffs enacted under Section 232 of U.S. trade law had not followed proper legal procedures.
These rulings cast doubt on the long-term viability of tariffs that were introduced without Congressional approval or adequate public comment.
But as with many legal battles, the picture remains complex — and the rulings vary depending on the details of each case.
Why This Matters for California
California is one of the largest trade hubs in the United States.
With massive port operations in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland, the state handles hundreds of billions of dollars in international goods every year.
When tariffs increase the cost of imports, it hits California businesses especially hard — from logistics companies to retailers to farmers who rely on imported equipment and materials.
That’s why state officials are so invested in challenging federal trade decisions that impact local economies.
According to analysts, California’s economy could face long-term harm if broad tariffs become the norm.
What’s Next? The Road Ahead
Now that the case has been dismissed in San Francisco, the next step is the Ninth Circuit appeal.
At the same time, legal experts say California could refile the case in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the court Judge Chesney pointed to in her decision.
That court specializes in trade law and has handled numerous high-profile cases involving tariffs over the past five years.
If the appeal succeeds or if the case is refiled in the correct venue, it could set the stage for a major legal review of executive authority in trade matters.
At the Heart of the Fight: Separation of Powers
While the case is largely about tariffs, at its core, it’s also about constitutional checks and balances.
Critics argue that letting the president unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs under emergency powers sets a dangerous precedent — one that sidesteps Congress, stifles economic stability, and gives too much power to the executive branch.
Supporters of Trump’s policy believe the president needs flexibility to respond to global economic threats, including unfair trade practices, hostile nations, and supply chain vulnerabilities.
Either way, the courts will now have to decide where the line should be drawn.
California’s legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs may have hit a procedural wall — but the state is far from finished.
With the potential for appeal and a possible refile in the Court of International Trade, this legal fight could shape the future of how America sets trade policy.
It’s not just about tariffs — it’s about who has the power to impose them, and how far that power should go.
As legal arguments continue to unfold, the case will likely be watched closely by economists, constitutional scholars, and global trade partners alike.
