Key Points: 

• Attorneys general says Trump tariffs are unconstitutional

• Tariffs will increase costs for ADOT

• Plaintiffs say the price increases will hurt U.S. businesses

Attorney General Kris Mayes wants the U.S. Court of International Trade to strike down as illegal the host of international tariffs imposed by President Trump.

On April 23, Mayes along with counterparts in other states acknowledged there are situations in which a president can impose tariffs on an emergency basis, but she said these are for limited reasons and must, by law, be of limited duration.

By contrast, Mayes said, the president has simply declared that the trade imbalance with other countries justifies imposing tariffs.

“These edicts reflect a national trade policy that now hinges on the president’s whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority,” the lawsuit says. “By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the president has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.”

The lawsuit also takes a separate swat at the excuse the president gave for specific tariffs on products from Mexico, Canada and China: that they were involved in the smuggling of drugs and migrants into the United States. It says there is no rationale between those claims and simply tacking what amounts to a surcharge on the price of items from those countries to U.S. customers.

Mayes, who is co-leading the lawsuit with Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, said this is more than an argument over presidential powers.

She said the Arizona Department of Transportation has contracts to buy many pieces of equipment, parts and supplies, many of which are imported from other countries.

“The tariffs are already increasing costs for ADOT,” the lawsuit states. That includes one contractor seeking a price increase citing the higher tariffs.

Mayes also said that state universities conducting research are likely to be affected because of “specialized equipment not available from domestic sources.”

She specifically cited technology that allows for seamless assembly of multiple semiconductor chips, with her office saying that there is no commercial capacity for this technology existing now in the United States.

Mayes said the tariffs on this project alone could increase costs by $1.4 million.

But the challengers say the effects will be much broader. They say that even studies done by the administration conclude that 95% of the cost of the tariffs — essentially a tax on imports — will be paid by individuals and companies here.

Cost issues aside, the lawsuit asks the court to declare that there’s no legal basis for what the president is doing.

“The Constitution assigns to Congress, not the president, the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises,” it says.

And then there’s what the challengers say is the arbitrary nature of the tariffs, which start at 10%.

“The Worldwide Tariff Orders even impose tariffs on places that are not involved in international trade,” the lawsuit says. That ranges from the military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia to the Heard and McDonald Islands — about 2,500 miles southwest of Australia — which is home to only penguins and no humans.

The bottom line, according to the challengers, is that nothing in this has to do with actions by other countries, but simply that consumers and companies in the United States buy more from many other countries than their residents purchase from U.S. firms.