Trump is already facing legal action — not over gas prices directly, but over the tariff policies that are compounding the energy cost crisis hitting American wallets. A coalition of 24 state attorneys general, led by New York AG Letitia James, filed suit on March 5, 2026, to block the president’s latest round of tariffs, which economic analysis shows would cost those states at least $748 million per year in additional costs. The legal challenges came just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs was not authorized — a landmark rebuke of presidential trade authority. Meanwhile, the national average gas price has surged to $3.63 per gallon as of early March 2026, a 19 percent jump in a single month, driven largely by the disruption of oil shipments following joint U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran beginning February 28.
The distinction matters for consumers hoping to recover losses at the pump. There is no specific lawsuit filed solely over gas prices. The legal battles center on whether Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by pivoting to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10 percent global tariff after the Supreme Court shut down his IEEPA tariffs. But for the average driver who watched prices climb from under $3.00 a gallon to $3.63 in a matter of weeks — and who heard the president bragging about $2.30 gas just one month earlier — the tariffs and the Iran conflict are two sides of the same economic pain.
Table of Contents
- What Legal Actions Has Trump Faced Over Rising Gas Prices and Tariff Policies?
- Why Gas Prices Spiked and How Tariffs Made It Worse
- How Public Opinion Is Shaping the Legal and Political Response
- What Emergency Measures Is the Trump Administration Considering?
- Can Consumers File Claims or Join a Class Action Over Gas Prices?
- The Supreme Court Ruling That Changed the Legal Landscape
- What Happens Next for Gas Prices and Legal Challenges
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Legal Actions Has Trump Faced Over Rising Gas Prices and Tariff Policies?
The most significant legal action came from New York Attorney General Letitia James, who assembled a coalition of 21 other attorneys general plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania to challenge trump‘s new tariffs in court. filed on March 5, 2026, the lawsuit argues that the president’s pivot to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — imposing a blanket 10 percent tariff on imports globally — was an illegal workaround after the Supreme Court struck down his IEEPA-based tariffs just two weeks earlier. California’s attorney general separately sought a court order stopping the tariffs, and Minnesota AG Keith Ellison filed his own suit. In total, 24 states are now plaintiffs in tariff-related litigation against the administration. Beyond the state-level challenges, a Costco customer lawsuit was filed on March 12, 2026, seeking a share of tariff refunds — an early sign that private consumer litigation is beginning to take shape.
While this case targets tariff costs passed along to shoppers rather than gas prices specifically, it establishes a precedent that consumers are willing to pursue legal remedies for policy-driven price increases. The tariff lawsuits and the gas price spike are legally distinct issues, but they are economically intertwined. Tariffs on imported goods raise costs across supply chains, including energy infrastructure components, and the compounding effect with the Iran-driven oil disruption has created a one-two punch for household budgets. It is worth noting what these lawsuits are not. No court has been asked to rule that Trump caused gas prices to rise, and no class action exists that would let individual consumers file claims for the difference between what they paid at the pump last month and what they are paying now. The legal theory in the AG lawsuits is narrowly constitutional — whether the president has the authority to impose these tariffs at all — not whether the economic consequences are harmful.
Why Gas Prices Spiked and How Tariffs Made It Worse
The primary driver of the gas price surge was the joint U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran that began on February 28, 2026. The conflict disrupted oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical chokepoints in global energy trade. Global shipping lanes were snarled for nearly two weeks, causing gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices to spike simultaneously. Oil prices climbed to approximately $100 per barrel by early March, and the national average at the pump followed, jumping 19 percent in roughly one month according to AAA data. However, the Iran conflict was not the only factor. Chatham House, the British policy institute, noted that U.S.
Energy prices were already set to rise before the war due to other policy factors, including the tariffs themselves. When you impose a 10 percent tariff on global imports, the cost increase ripples through every sector that relies on imported materials — including the energy industry, which depends on foreign-manufactured equipment, refined products, and shipping services. For consumers, this means the price at the pump reflects not just crude oil costs but also the accumulated tariff burden across the supply chain. If the tariffs were struck down tomorrow and the Iran situation resolved next week, prices would likely still take months to normalize because of how deeply these cost increases have embedded themselves in contracts and inventories. The speed of the price change is what makes it so politically damaging. Trump had publicly bragged about gas at $2.30 per gallon just one month before the spike, according to Fortune’s March 13 reporting. Going from a talking point to a liability in 30 days is the kind of reversal that fuels both public anger and legal creativity.
How Public Opinion Is Shaping the Legal and Political Response
Public opinion has turned sharply against the administration on energy costs. An Axios poll published on March 12, 2026, found that 48 percent of americans blame Trump and his administration for high gas prices — more than any other factor, including the Iran conflict itself or oil companies. That number is significant because it suggests voters are drawing a direct line between presidential decisions and the price they see on the gas station sign, regardless of how many intermediary factors exist.
Governor Gavin Newsom of California has been among the most vocal critics, publicly blasting Trump on March 10, 2026, for “raising gasoline prices on Americans with no plan and no accountability.” Newsom’s framing is politically calculated — it positions the gas price spike as a consequence of reckless policy rather than unavoidable geopolitical fallout — but it also reflects the reality that two separate policy decisions (the tariffs and the Iran military action) both trace back to the executive branch. For attorneys general considering further legal action, public sentiment matters because it signals political support for aggressive litigation and reduces the risk of voter backlash for challenging a sitting president. The polling data also explains why the administration has scrambled to respond with emergency measures rather than simply weathering the criticism. When nearly half the country holds the president personally responsible for a kitchen-table issue, the political calculus demands visible action, even if that action — like releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — provides only marginal relief.
What Emergency Measures Is the Trump Administration Considering?
The administration has floated several emergency responses, each with significant tradeoffs. The most concrete is a 30-day Jones Act waiver, announced around March 12, 2026, which would allow cheaper foreign-flagged tankers to move oil between U.S. ports. Under normal circumstances, the Jones Act requires that goods shipped between American ports travel on American-built, American-owned, American-crewed vessels. Waiving that requirement could reduce transportation costs and speed up domestic oil distribution, but it would infuriate the domestic maritime industry and its unions, a constituency that has historically enjoyed bipartisan protection. The administration is also considering releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with Trump saying they would “reduce it a little bit” — a notably cautious framing for a president who has historically favored bold moves.
The SPR option is a proven short-term tool for cooling prices, but it depletes a finite national security asset and does nothing to address the underlying supply disruption. More aggressive options reportedly under consideration include price controls on gasoline, restrictions on U.S. oil exports, and Treasury intervention in oil futures markets. Each of these would represent an extraordinary level of government intervention in energy markets, and any one of them would likely trigger its own round of legal challenges from industry groups. The comparison worth drawing is between the Jones Act waiver and the SPR release. The waiver addresses a structural inefficiency in domestic shipping and could have lasting effects beyond the current crisis, while the SPR release is a temporary band-aid that buys time but solves nothing. If the administration is serious about durable relief, the Jones Act approach is more defensible, but it is also more politically costly.
Can Consumers File Claims or Join a Class Action Over Gas Prices?
As of mid-March 2026, there is no class action lawsuit that allows individual consumers to file claims for losses caused by the gas price spike. The Costco customer lawsuit filed on March 12 is the closest example of private consumer litigation, but it targets tariff-related cost increases on retail goods, not gasoline specifically. For a gas-price class action to succeed, plaintiffs would need to identify a defendant who engaged in unlawful conduct — such as price gouging, market manipulation, or antitrust violations — that directly caused the price increase. Blaming the president for policy decisions, even disastrous ones, is not the same as establishing legal liability for consumer losses. The limitation here is important for readers to understand. Policy decisions that raise costs for millions of people are not automatically actionable in court.
The legal system distinguishes between harm caused by private actors violating the law and harm caused by government policy, even bad government policy. The AG lawsuits are challenging whether the tariffs are legally authorized, not whether they caused economic harm — the harm is obvious, but it is only legally relevant if the tariffs themselves are unlawful. If the courts do strike down the tariffs, there could be a path to recovering tariff payments already collected, which is part of what the Costco lawsuit seeks. But a refund on tariffs is very different from compensation for high gas prices. Consumers in states with price gouging laws should watch for separate enforcement actions. Several states have statutes that prohibit retailers from charging unconscionably high prices during emergencies, and if individual gas stations are found to have marked up prices beyond what the wholesale cost increase justifies, state attorneys general could pursue those cases independently of the federal tariff litigation.
The Supreme Court Ruling That Changed the Legal Landscape
The February 20, 2026, Supreme Court decision striking down Trump’s use of IEEPA for tariffs was a watershed moment in trade law. The ruling held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, a power the Court found belongs to Congress under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. This was not a narrow procedural ruling — it was a direct check on executive authority over trade policy that will constrain future presidents as well.
The decision forced Trump to pivot to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days to address large and serious balance-of-payments deficits. Legal scholars have questioned whether the current economic situation meets that statutory threshold, which is exactly what the 24-state AG coalition is challenging in court. For consumers, the practical significance is that the legal infrastructure to challenge presidential tariff overreach now exists and has already produced a win at the highest level. If the Section 122 tariffs are also struck down, it would represent a second major defeat for the administration’s trade authority and could open the door to refund claims for tariffs already collected.
What Happens Next for Gas Prices and Legal Challenges
The trajectory of gas prices depends on two largely independent variables: whether the Iran conflict de-escalates enough to reopen normal shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and whether the courts act quickly enough on the tariff challenges to provide economic relief before the 150-day statutory window for Section 122 tariffs expires on its own. If the courts issue preliminary injunctions blocking the tariffs — which the California AG has specifically requested — consumers could see some relief on imported goods within weeks, though gas prices would still be driven primarily by the geopolitical situation. The longer-term question is whether this crisis creates lasting legal precedent that constrains future presidents from using trade policy as a unilateral economic tool.
The Supreme Court has already drawn one line. The lower courts are being asked to draw another. For the 48 percent of Americans who blame the administration for their pain at the pump, the legal system may be the most realistic avenue for accountability — not through individual claims, but through the structural challenges that attorneys general across 24 states have already set in motion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue Trump personally for high gas prices?
No. Presidential policy decisions, even ones that cause widespread economic harm, are protected by executive immunity. The legal challenges underway are targeting the constitutionality of specific tariff actions, not seeking personal liability from the president.
Is there a class action lawsuit I can join over the gas price spike?
As of March 2026, there is no class action specifically targeting gas prices. The Costco customer lawsuit filed on March 12 seeks tariff refunds on retail goods, which is the closest existing consumer action. No equivalent exists yet for gasoline costs.
How much have gas prices actually increased?
The national average hit $3.63 per gallon as of approximately March 8, 2026, according to AAA. That represents a 19 percent increase in roughly one month. Before the Iran conflict began on February 28, the national average was under $3.00 per gallon.
What are the 24 states suing over?
The coalition led by NY AG Letitia James is challenging Trump’s use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10 percent global tariff. They argue this exceeded presidential authority, especially after the Supreme Court already struck down his IEEPA-based tariffs on February 20, 2026. Economic analysis shows the tariffs would cost these states at least $748 million per year.
Will the Jones Act waiver lower gas prices?
It could help modestly by allowing cheaper foreign tankers to transport oil between U.S. ports, reducing domestic shipping costs. However, the waiver is only for 30 days and does not address the fundamental supply disruption caused by the Iran conflict or the added costs from tariffs.
What would happen if the courts block the new tariffs?
If courts issue a preliminary injunction or strike down the Section 122 tariffs, it could reduce costs on imported goods and potentially open the door to refunding tariffs already collected. However, gas prices would still be heavily influenced by the Iran conflict and global oil market conditions.