(The Center Square) – A halt to President Donald Trump’s tariffs was sought by a court motion filed Wednesday by a coalition led by Arizona and Oregon.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed by Democratic attorneys general from the two states as well as Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont. The states filed the motion in the U.S. Court of International Trade, which is primarily based in New York City. They’re asking the court to order federal agencies to stop collecting what the states call Trump’s “illegal tariffs.”

The motion is part of a lawsuit that the states filed in late April in the same court. The suit named Trump, the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and its acting commissioner, Peter Flores, as defendants.

The Democratic attorneys general’s lawsuit challenges the Republican president’s executive orders calling for higher tariffs on most products around the world. The tariffs include a 145% tariff on most goods from China, a 25% tariff on most products from Canada and Mexico, and 10% tariffs on most products from the rest of the world.

In addition to seeking a pause on those tariffs, the motion filed Wednesday calls for the U.S. Court of International Trade to block Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on 56 additional international trading partners on July 9.

Trump has contended he had the power to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but the states’ lawsuit and Wednesday’s motion disagree. The states also contend the constitutional authority rests with Congress, not the president. 

“These tariffs weren’t approved by Congress, violate the Constitution, and are already driving up costs for Arizona families, small businesses and local governments,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Wednesday.

“The law is clear. Only Congress can impose taxes like these, and the President’s attempt to sidestep that authority is both unconstitutional and economically disastrous,” Mayes said in a news release.

It’s important to pause the tariffs before they do any damage, she stressed.

The states in the lawsuit submitted an economic analysis to the court. The analysis said state and local governments in the states filing Wednesday’s motion stand to pay at least $3.4 billion per year in additional costs because of the tariffs.

“Unless this Court intervenes, the States will suffer irreparable harm,” Wednesday’s motion reads. “President Trump’s tariffs are already disrupting procurement by state agencies and universities and impairing state budgeting processes. States will have no practical ability to recover the enormous expenses they will incur when buying vital goods and equipment as importers inevitably raise prices because of the IEEPA Tariff Orders.”

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the tariffs are hurting Oregonians and small businesses.

“Families cannot be expected to pay more at the store at a time when they’re already struggling to afford the basics.” Rayfield said in a news release. “The President can’t just slap on tariffs that hurt working people without following the law.

“I don’t know many families who can afford an extra $3,800 a year,” Rayfield said, referring to a figure his office previously published on the estimated impact on the average Oregon family. 

(The Center Square) – Protection from discrimination in financing for North Carolina farmers is poised to reach the finish line at the General Assembly.

The Senate on Wednesday evening gave final passage to a proposal that makes it illegal for a banks “denying or canceling service for agricultural producers based on greenhouse gas emissions or use of fossil-fuel derived fertilizer or powered machinery,” says the digest from the UNC School of Government in concert with the state legislative site. Environmental, social, and governance policies in investments are often called ESG.

The Farmers Protection Act, known also as Senate Bill 554 and with a companion House Bill 62, was approved 36-11 in the upper chamber with seven Democrats in favor. House Bill 62 has been in the lower chamber’s Committee on Commerce and Economic Development since March 17.

Sens. Buck Newton and Lisa Barnes of neighboring Wilson and Nash counties, respectively, shepherded the bill. No Republicans were against it. Democrats in favor were Sens. Gale Adcock and Dan Blue of Wake County; Woodson Bradley, Mujtaba Mohammed and Joyce Waddell of Mecklenburg County; Paul Lowe of Forsyth County; and Gladys Robinson of Guilford County,

If enacted, the bill becomes law immediately.

(The Center Square) – A new report from the state-funded Legislative Analyst’s Office has found the California economy is “stagnant” and “fragile,” with “less revenue expected.” The report cites sustained job losses, declining consumer spending, an “unsustainable” stock market and “federal policy turbulence.” 

“The state’s economy has been in an extended slowdown for over two years. The labor market has struggled, marked by a growing number of unemployed workers and slowed hiring. The state has added no jobs so far in 2025,” wrote the LAO. “Similarly, consumer spending (measured by inflation‑adjusted retail sales and taxable sales) has consistently declined.”

The Center Square has reported on how the state has lost nearly 200,000 net private sector jobs since January 2023. That was only offset by net gains in taxpayer-funded employment, the plurality of which has been from a welfare program in which low-income individuals enrolled in the state’s taxpayer-funded healthcare program “hire” household members for part-time, minimum-wage jobs as in-home care “providers.” 

Private sector layoffs have exceeded taxpayer-funded hiring every month this year, resulting in net job losses. 

A February report from the LAO highlighted the state’s falling sales and corporate tax revenues, finding these losses have been offset by personal income taxes buoyed by high stock market values. 

“Income tax collections have surged over the last two years despite a weak labor market. Collections instead have been driven by the stock market, which, despite the recent volatility, is up almost 40 percent from two years ago,” continued the LAO. “Despite some declines, there are still reasons to be worried gains of the last two years may not be sustainable.”

Due to the state’s progressive tax structure, the state is highly reliant on taxes on capital gains and high salaries, making the state’s revenue more volatile and subject to wide swings based on stock market performance. 

Amid structural weakness in California’s economy, the LAO warns federal policy could make matters even worse, as declining consumer sentiment and economic expectations signal a recession is likely. 

“The risks posed by California’s stagnant economy and a potentially overheated stock market have been magnified by recent federal policy actions,” wrote the LAO. “Expectations for gross domestic product growth over the next few quarters are among the lowest in the survey’s history. Survey readings have only been this low three times.”

“Two of these episodes aligned with recessions,” continued the LAO. “The third was in 2023, when economists consistently anticipated a near-term slowdown in the U.S. economy that did not materialize.”

A January report from the U.S. Department of Treasury suggests that the anticipated 2023 recession was averted through sustained government and consumer spending, and business investments in productivity growth.

In February, the New York Federal Reserve reported household debt is continuing to grow rapidly, with credit card debt making up nearly half of all household debt growth, and credit card delinquency rising 13% between the end of 2023 and the end of 2024. 

This suggests consumers are running out of cash and using debt to maintain post-COVID consumption levels.

With the Trump administration finally requiring the resumption of student loan payments that have been suspended since the start of the COVID-19 era, consumers could have even less cash on hand as confiscations for payment of delinquent student loans begins. 

According to the Trump administration, fewer than four in 10 student loan borrowers are actively repaying their federal student loans issued by taxpayers. Should the loans not be repaid, taxpayers will be on the hook.

Federal student loan portfolio data show nearly four million Californians have a combined student debt load of over $151 billion. 

This means, if national trends hold, nearly two and a half million Californians may suddenly face a resumption in student loan payments, whether voluntary or forced — which could prove to be a tipping point for California’s weak economy.