State attorney generals just have no particularized interest. They’re like anybody else in the United States. Tariffs are very complicated. Judges don’t have any basis for deciding whether they’re good or bad for the economy. That can be decided by legislatures if they decide to take over the issue or by elected executives, but not by appointed judges.

Host Greta Van Susteren asked Dershowitz if a state could successfully sue on behalf of its "devastated agriculture sector," to which he answered, "I don't think so," adding:

I think you’d have to have the farmers bringing the lawsuit, not the attorney general of the state. But even farmers would have a difficult time demonstrating that they were directly impacted in a way that was illegal by the tariffs.

When you have tariffs, some people are helped, some people are hurt. That’s the nature of the economy. There are winners, and there are losers. Trump ran for office promising that he would use tariffs, and he was elected. So I just don’t think there is standing to challenge this by virtually anybody.

But if anybody would have standing, it would be a particular person who may have been subject to the tariff who would otherwise be able to sell his product cheaper than he could sell it now. But this is such a stretch that I think they’re going to be laughed at. //

Finally, yes — tariffs used as a bargaining chip can be effective. Also, yes: The longer tariff (trade) wars continue, the worse they become. Why? Because long-term trade wars lead to inflation, without exception.