California sues Trump to block latest tariffs, sharing of needy families’ data with ICE

1. Tariff Challenge (U.S. Court of International Trade): A 25-state coalition challenging the administration’s latest global tariffs (10% to 12.5%) imposed on over 80 economies. The states argue that the administration’s reliance on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (citing forced labor in international supply chains) is a pretextual attempt to recreate broad tariffs previously struck down by courts.
2. TANF Data-Sharing Challenge (U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C.): A multi-state suit seeking to block the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) from sharing sensitive personal data—including Social Security numbers, income, and marital status—of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and immigration enforcement.

Key Context & Arguments

1. The Tariff Dispute

• The Legal Standard: Following court rulings striking down emergency-based broad tariffs (including a Supreme Court decision rejecting IEEPA-based duties), the White House turned to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, using a 2.5-month investigation into global forced labor as its justification.
• Plaintiffs’ Position: AG Bonta and partner states contend that using anti-forced-labor provisions to apply blanket tariffs across 80+ countries is a pretextual maneuver that violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Economists and state officials emphasize that the costs of these tariffs are primarily borne by U.S. consumers and businesses, contributing to domestic inflation.
• White House Response: White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the tariffs as a “legally durable tool” intended to eliminate unfair trade practices, protect U.S. commerce, and penalize foreign markets that fail to enforce prohibitions against forced labor.

2. The Data-Sharing Dispute

• The Legal Standard: The ACF issued a System of Records Notice (SORN) authorizing the transfer of low-income family records to outside agencies, including DHS.
• Plaintiffs’ Position: The lawsuit alleges the SORN violates the APA, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act (which requires formal inter-agency agreements before sharing personal databases), and the Spending Clause of the Constitution. State officials argue that leveraging a child poverty/welfare database creates a system of mass surveillance that may deter eligible U.S. citizen children from receiving food and cash assistance out of fear that their parents will be targeted by ICE.
• White House Response: The administration frames data-sharing across federal and state agencies as a necessary measure to eliminate waste, prevent benefit fraud, and ensure that taxpayer-funded safety-net programs are reserved exclusively for eligible U.S. citizens.

Wider Legal Landscape