Trump’s Emergency Tariffs Face Legal Challenges
WASHINGTON – This week, House Democrats contended that President Donald Trump’s significant emergency tariffs have undermined Congressional authority, asking federal courts to review their validity regarding international trade obligations.
The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is preparing to hear arguments concerning some of Trump’s tariffs after lower courts previously blocked them in May. Despite these legal setbacks, Trump has continued to issue warnings about potential tariffs on various trading partners, including a notable 50% import tax on products from Brazil.
On Tuesday, nearly 200 lawmakers submitted an Amicus brief, asserting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump invoked, does not provide him the authority to impose or rescind tariffs.
Those lawmakers claimed that Trump’s unique application of the IEEPA contravenes Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which vests Congress with the power to tax and regulate commerce with foreign nations.
As the brief noted, “This reflects Framer’s interest in ensuring that the most democratically accountable branches, the ones closest to the people, are tasked with establishing taxes, duties, and tariffs.” This involvement included 191 Democrats in Congress.
According to the lawmakers, Congress has explicitly delegated tariff-raising authority to the president, but in specific, limited contexts.
They emphasized, “The President’s unauthorized ‘urgent’ tariffs, which lack the backing of the Structural Protection Council, have resulted in economic confusion and uncertainty.”
Concerns Over Economic Instability
New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, co-leading the briefs with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, expressed significant concerns about the impact of Trump’s tariff strategies. Similarly, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries collaborated with other prominent lawmakers from across the nation in this effort.
Shaheen remarked on Wednesday that Trump’s “reckless tariff agenda led to economic disruption and increases in prices for both families and businesses during a time of already high living costs.”
She added, “The misuse of the emergency authority to impose tariffs reveals that he lacks the power to unilaterally initiate the largest tax hike seen in decades.” Moreover, she reiterated that IEEPA cannot be employed to set tariffs.
Background on the May Decision
The U.S. International Trade Court, in a decision made on May 28, rejected Trump’s emergency tariffs after facing two legal challenges from a handful of business owners and numerous Democratic attorney generals. States such as Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon were involved in the lawsuits.
A prominent business plaintiff was VOS Secrets, a New York company importing wine and spirits from 16 nations. Other plaintiffs included manufacturers from Utah, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
Following an appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to stay in effect while the legal proceedings continue.
The Extent of Tariffs
Trump invoked IEEPA to declare international trade a national emergency and announced comprehensive tariffs on April 2, marking what he referred to as “liberation day.”
Customs duties have dramatically affected the U.S.’s principal trading partners, hitting 46% on imports from Vietnam, 25% from South Korea, and 20% from the European Union.
This announcement led to a massive market downturn that has since recovered. While Trump postponed tariffs for 90 days on all countries except China, his administration had sparked a significant trade confrontation with Asian nations, initially reaching tariffs as high as 145%. This has since been temporarily eased to a range depending on profit margins.
Even prior to the abrupt “Liberation Day” declaration, small business owners across the U.S. expressed fears about potentially dire economic repercussions.
The ongoing legal disputes will not impact tariffs imposed by Trump under different regulations, including those related to national security. Some tariffs on steel imposed during Trump’s first term remain enforced under the subsequent administration.
