Two wire services, one lawsuit, same day. Reuters: "Democratic US states sue to challenge Trump's latest tariffs." AP: "25 states sue over Trump administration's latest tariffs, citing Supreme Court ruling." Same courthouse. Completely different story. * One breath of background: in February the Supreme Court struck down Trump's emergency-powers tariffs. On July 24 they came back — 10% and 12.5% on 60 trading partners, this time under a law about forced labor. On Monday, 25 attorneys general marched into the Court of International Trade asking a judge to declare the new version unlawful, stop collecting it, and refund what's been paid. * Now look at what Reuters put in the shop window: "Democratic US states." Accurate as far as it goes — this is a blue-led coalition, no argument. But adjectives do filing work, and "Democratic states sue Trump" is the single most pre-owned headline template of this decade. Readers see it and shelve it instantly: partisan noise, round forty-seven, wake me when there's a ruling. * AP's headline does two things Reuters' doesn't: it counts to 25, and it names the Supreme Court. That's the actual plot. Twenty-five is not a faction — it's half the country's states. And the lawsuit isn't "Democrats versus tariffs"; it's whether the White House can re-run a play the referee already whistled dead, just wearing a different jersey number. * The quotes tell you which frame fits. New York's Letitia James: "After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses." The White House's Kush Desai, defending tariffs whose official justification is forced labor: the U.S. is using "its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce." Notice what's missing from the defense of the forced-labor tariffs: the words "forced labor." Even the costume's tailor forgot the theme. * We've been on this story since the midnight resurrection. Ten days ago, when the struck-down tariffs walked back in wearing a human-rights lanyard, NBC's headline heard a gym membership expire — "U.S. sets tariffs on 60 trade partners as temporary duties expire" — and we said the resurrection was the plot. Monday's lawsuit is the sequel we predicted, filed by people with subpoena power. The sequel deserves better billing than "blue states do blue-state thing." * Fair's fair: Reuters wasn't alone — "Democratic states sue" was all over Monday's wires, and Reuters' own story lays out the legal argument perfectly well below the fold. But that's exactly the mindset worth naming. When a constitutional rematch gets sorted by jersey color in the headline, the only thing the workaround needs from readers is a shrug. Boredom is the tariff's best legal defense.