Oregon again leads argument against President Trump’s tariffs
By Mia Maldonado, Oregon Capital Chronicle
SALEM, Ore. -- Like a child trying to find ways around a parent’s “no,” President Donald Trump is still trying to find ways to justify his tariffs after the Supreme Court in late February struck them down, Oregon’s top legal officer said.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield met virtually with reporters Friday following a three-hour hearing at the Court of International Trade in New York City. Rayfield is leading a second lawsuit against Trump with 23 other state attorneys general over the president’s ongoing attempts to impose tariffs.
Rayfield used his son getting denied a cookie as an example to explain the president’s behavior.
“If I say, ‘Hey you don’t get to eat that cookie,’ and my son… would then blend the cookie up and try to drink it and consume the cookie in a different way,” he said, “that’s effectively what the president’s trying to do.”
Trump in 2025 initially argued he could impose tariffs under a 50-year-old law that gives presidents broad authority to regulate international commerce during national emergencies, but after the Supreme Court struck down that argument, he picked a different justification — a provision of the Trade Act of 1974.
That law authorizes presidents to impose temporary, nondiscriminatory tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address “fundamental international payment problems,” which Trump has interpreted as referring to trade deficits.
Rayfield and the other state attorneys general in their March 5 suit argue Trump is exercising tariff authority he doesn’t have, and that he is misconstruing the Trade Act of 1974, which was enacted after former President Richard Nixon announced the dollar would not be backed by gold anymore to curb growing international financial crises.
After Friday’s oral arguments, the judges are truly grappling with a novel interpretation of a provision of a 50-year old law, according to Rayfield, who added that a decision is expected in a few weeks or months.
He said he’s unsure whether the case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, like the previous tariff case, but he anticipates the federal government will appeal the court’s decision if it doesn’t go their way, which would delay any potential refunds and tariff relief Oregonians and businesses would receive.
“Instead of working on refunds for Americans, they double down on this tariff policy,” Rayfield said.
