* Lawsuit is the first to challenge Trump's

recently-imposed global tariffs

* Trump had imposed new tariffs after Supreme Court

invalidated most of his prior tariffs

* States that joined the lawsuit include California, New

York, Oregon

(Updates paragraphs 1-2 to reflect lawsuit has now been filed,

adds comment from Oregon Attorney General and White House in

paragraphs 3-6 and context in paragraph 11)

By Dietrich Knauth

March 5 (Reuters) - A group of 24 U.S. states sued

President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday in the first

legal challenge to his newly imposed 10% global tariffs,

alleging that the president cannot sidestep a recent U.S.

Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of his previous

tariffs on imported goods by citing new legal authority.

The Democratic-led states, including New York, California

and Oregon, argue the new tariffs, which Trump announced

immediately after the high court ruling on February 20, are also

illegal. The tariffs were imposed for 150 days under the Trade

Act of 1974, which is meant to address short-term monetary

emergencies, not routine trade deficits that arise when a

wealthy nation like the United States imports more than it

exports, according to the states' lawsuit filed in the New

York-based U.S. Court of International Trade.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said during a press

conference that Trump's latest tariffs are an attempted "end

run" around working with Congress, as the U.S. Constitution

requires.

"Make no mistake about it, President Trump's signature

economic policy is historically unpopular and is costing

Americans, our business, and us as states hundreds of billions

of dollars," Rayfield said. "It cannot continue just because a

few of Trump's lawyers have found a way to twist words and craft

a legal argument."

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement that

the administration will vigorously defend the president's action

in court.

"The President is using his authority granted by Congress to

address fundamental international payments problems and to deal

with our country's large and serious balance-of-payments

deficits," Desai said.

Trump's February 20 executive order imposed a 10% tariff on

imports, but U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said

Wednesday that those rates would likely rise to 15% later this

week.

CENTRAL PILLAR

Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign

policy in his second term, claiming sweeping authority to issue

tariffs without input from Congress. But the Supreme Court on

February 20 handed Trump a stinging defeat when it struck down a

huge swath of tariffs he had imposed under the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling that the law did not give

him the power he claimed.

Trump responded by criticizing the justices who ruled

against him and announcing new duties under Section 122 of the

Trade Act of 1974, a law that - like IEEPA - had never before

been used to impose tariffs in the U.S. Trump has also imposed

other tariffs, on imports like autos, steel and aluminum, under

more traditional legal authority. Those tariffs are safer from

legal challenges.

Section 122 authority allows the president to impose duties

of up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries to

address "large and serious" balance of payments issues. It does

not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

After 150 days, Congress would need to approve their extension.

The balance-of-payments deficit measures in the Trade Act

are primarily meant to address "archaic" monetary risks that

existed when foreign governments could trade in their dollars

for gold held by the U.S., according to the states. Trump,

however, has misapplied that standard in an attempt to instead

address U.S. "trade deficits," which occur when a nation imports

more than it exports, according to the states.

The states that filed the lawsuit include 22 states with

Democratic attorneys general and two, Pennsylvania and Kentucky,

with Democratic governors and Republican attorneys general. They

are asking the court to issue an order that would block the new

tariffs and order any tariff payments already made under Section

122 authority to be refunded.

Meanwhile, the court is grappling with about 2,000 lawsuits

from businesses seeking refunds for more than $130 billion in

IEEPA tariff payments made by importers before the Supreme

Court's February ruling. On Wednesday, the court ordered U.S.

Customs to begin processing tariff refunds.