Former President Donald Trump defends a big legal fight about the tariffs he slapped on everyone. This case focuses on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade is currently considering this case. Their goal is to figure out whether Trump acted beyond his executive authority when he imposed broad tariffs on more than 180 countries and territories last month.
On April 1, Trump called this a “national emergency.” He then used this declaration to invoke the IEEPA, a law from 1977 that allows the President to regulate international economic transactions. The Wisconsin-based firm Husch Blackwell—representing five domestic businesses—has filed a legal complaint. They claim that the IEEPA does not permit Trump to impose such sweeping duties. That’s why the plaintiffs argue that only Congress – as specified in the Constitution – can impose and raise taxes, not the President.
The lawsuit, filed back in mid-April, points to a more profound concern. These businesses really, really import goods that’s difficult to obtain in the United States. As far as the plaintiffs are concerned, Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is nothing more than “a figment of his own imagination.” Further, they argue that trade deficits—which have existed for 40 years and done no harm to our economy—are not an appropriate emergency on which to base their unilateral actions.
The Liberty Justice Center —an ideological, libertarian, nonprofit law firm— is repping the plaintiffs. They argue that the judges’ decision will deeply limit Trump’s authority to impose import taxes unilaterally. They argue, “If Congress has granted the President unilateral authority to impose global tariffs of any amount at his whim, it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.”
In response to the situation, Trump cut the tariff rates down to a blanket 10% for 90 days for most countries except China. Notably, the U.S. and China reached a separate agreement for a 90-day pause on tariffs while they continue trade negotiations. This new development greatly complicates the current litigation that is still ongoing over the legal matters.
Department of Justice’s legal representatives contend that the IEEPA permits the President to impose tariffs during national emergencies. They implicitly bluff on this point in order to buttress their argument. According to them, “Through IEEPA, Congress lawfully delegated to the President authority to regulate importation through the imposition of tariffs.”
The ramifications of this case are much larger than any single company. A ruling against Trump would change the grounds on which these kinds of tariffs can be imposed in the future. It would importantly bolster Congressional prerogative over taxing and trade.
These court proceedings will be of public interest, and we intend to watch them closely. Beginning at 11 a.m. ET today, join our #FightForOurFuture and listen to the livestream of the arguments direct from the Manhattan courtroom. As both sides present their cases, all eyes will be on how the judges interpret the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency concerning international trade policies.
Leave a Reply