Twelve state attorneys general sued on Wednesday to halt the Trump administration from enforcing or implementing its tariff scheme. The lawsuit argued that taxing imports is an enumerated power of Congress, which it has only delegated to the executive branch in select instances.

The attorneys general who joined the lawsuit were all Democrats — representing Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Thus, in a sense the lawsuit is one more skirmish in a broad campaign of partisan lawfare against the Trump administration. But several points make this particular engagement noteworthy.

First, the venue for the lawsuit is the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialty court for overseeing all disputes related to trade. The court initially operated under the Treasury Department, but Congress established it as the Article III court (in the judicial branch) in 1980. Many trade disputes are heard by a single judge, but weightier matters may be heard by a three-judge panel (this legal challenge would certainly qualify as a weightier matter).

The Court of International Trade provides a favorable context for the state challengers. It is headquartered in Manhattan (due to New York’s historical prominence as an important center of international trade), and six of its nine full-time judges were appointed by Democratic presidents (four by Obama, three by Trump, and two by Biden).

Second, the lawsuit challenges President Trump’s authority to implement widespread tariffs, opening with a constitutional broadside. “The Constitution assigns to Congress, not the President, the ‘Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.’ Art. I, § 8,” the lawsuit recites. “Yet over the last three months, the President has imposed, modified, escalated, and suspended tariffs by executive order, memoranda, social media post, and agency decree. 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 goes on to concede that “Congress has authorized the President to raise duties, more commonly called tariffs, in specific circumstances.” Among these, it lists “countervailing duties,” “antidumping tariffs,” “tariffs to address threats to national security,” “tariffs to protect domestic industries,” “tariffs to respond to violations of international trade agreements,” and tariffs to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” However, each of these specific tariffs entails certain administrative “prerequisites” that the Trump administration has not fulfilled.

Instead, President Trump invoked the power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the president to exercise special authority “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat” (50 U.S.C. § 1701(a)).

Most relevantly, the IEEPA grants the president emergency power to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit … importation of exportation of … any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest … subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B)).

The lawsuit contends that “this is the language of embargoes and sanction,” and should not apply to tariffs at all. Even if it does, it argues further that “the purported ‘unusual and extraordinary threats’ identified by President Trump as ‘national emergencies’ do not amount to emergencies. Nor are they extraordinary or even unusual.” They proceed to list various exceptions and suspensions Trump has added to its tariff regime since the first announcement.

A third noteworthy feature of this latest legal challenge to the Trump administration is the status of the challenging states. The multi-million-dollar question (probably literally) is, do these states have standing to sue?

The states try to demonstrate that they do have standing. They compiled receipts from state entities for several overseas purchases that were made costlier by the recent tariff regimen. And they argue that tariffs will in general raise their operating costs even from domestic businesses.

The strategy here seems similar to that employed by Republican state AGs against the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness scheme, where the state of Missouri argued that it would be harmed because it has a state-run fund that held many of the loans. After several unsuccessful challenges to Biden’s unilateral student loan forgiveness, this is the angle that finally found favor in the eyes of the courts.

But have these 12 states really proven sufficient grounds for standing? Can they really object to federal government actions simply because those actions indirectly raise their operating costs?

It would be pure speculation to suggest the federal court’s answer, much less in this specialty trade court with its specialty rules. There could be multiple directions in which this case will swing, for multiple reasons. But it’s difficult to predict the outcome — either on its first hearing or on appeal, which would, presumably, go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We may not know the outcome nor have influence over it. But what we can do is pray. Pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2). We can pray for a just outcome, for wise policy, and for high officials to seek the good of this country and its citizens. We can thank God that there is a specialty trade court, with judges highly experienced in the arcane nuances of trade law. And we can pray that he who turns the hearts of kings will exercise his power here for the good of his people.