Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown announced two legal victories this week in separate cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration involving tariffs and federal homeland security funding.
The rulings mark the latest in a series of multistate lawsuits led or joined by Democratic attorneys general challenging federal policies they argue exceed executive authority or improperly withhold federal resources from states.
In the first case, Brown secured a federal court ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to impose tariffs on imported goods under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In a May 7 ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment in favor of Washington state and two private plaintiffs, ruling that the tariffs imposed under Proclamation No. 11012 were unauthorized by law.
The court issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the tariffs against Washington state and the private plaintiffs involved in the case. However, the court dismissed claims brought by several other states for lack of standing.
“This is a win for both affordability and the rule of law,” Brown said. “It’s American consumers and businesses that have ultimately paid for the president’s illegal tariff campaign. The court’s order will encourage more parties to challenge this illegal executive overreach.”
According to Brown’s office, the Trump administration had attempted to impose 10% tariffs on most imported goods worldwide after the U.S. Supreme Court previously invalidated an earlier tariff effort under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The administration argued the tariffs were justified by trade deficits, but the trade court ruled Section 122 permits tariffs only in cases involving “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,” a condition the court determined had not been established under the statute.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 24 states, including Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and others, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Although the ruling currently applies specifically to Washington state and certain private plaintiffs, Brown’s office said the decision could encourage additional legal challenges to the tariffs nationwide.
In a separate case, Brown also announced the resolution of a lawsuit challenging cuts to homeland security funding that states argued were politically motivated.
The lawsuit accused the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency of improperly reducing Homeland Security Grant Program funding to states that declined to redirect local law enforcement resources toward federal immigration enforcement efforts.
According to Brown’s office, Washington’s expected allocation was reduced by approximately $2 million after DHS and FEMA altered funding decisions without advance notice in 2024.
In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled in favor of Washington and a coalition of states, finding the funding reductions unlawful. Although the Trump administration initially appealed the decision, officials later dropped the appeal, allowing the ruling to remain in place.
“This latest win affirms funding that protects Americans from acts of terrorism may not be used as a political tool,” Brown said. “My office has repeatedly beaten this administration in court when they threaten the rights and well-being of Washingtonians.”
The Homeland Security Grant Program distributes approximately $1 billion annually to support state and local efforts focused on terrorism prevention, emergency preparedness, and public safety response capabilities.
The court ordered DHS to restore the funding levels originally promised to the plaintiff states and invalidated other late-stage changes to emergency preparedness programs implemented at the end of the federal fiscal year.
