Are Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs Illegal?
In the wake of what President Donald Trump called "Liberation Day," Victor Owen Schwartz has been scrambling.
As the owner of VOS Selections, a New York-based importer and distributor of wines and spirits, Schwartz is required by state law to list his prices every month on a publicly available database. The day after Trump's tariffs were announced, he was poring over his records—drawn from more than 300 suppliers across six continents—and trying to figure out what to do with each of the thousands of stock-keeping units (SKUs) in his inventory.
"We had to go through every single SKU to make a strategic decision about what we were going to do with our prices on that item. When it was shipping, what was in stock, when we think we're going to have to reorder, what was going to be the impact," Schwartz told Reason in an interview on Tuesday.
It's not just the added cost that's been a problem—though that is certainly a big one in a competitive industry running on small margins. It's also the fact that tariffs have been on and off and on again in recent weeks. That's made it "impossible" to plan ahead, Schwartz says, and has left him unable to know what he's buying, how much he needs to sell, or what the future could hold for his 19 employees.
For Schwartz and many other American business owners, there's no doubt that Trump's tariffs have sowed uncertainty, fractured supply chains, and raised prices.
They also violated the law, a newly filed lawsuit argues.
Schwartz is one of several plaintiffs in that lawsuit, filed Monday by the Liberty Justice Center (LJC), challenging the Trump administration's authority to levy the 10 percent across-the-board tariffs the president announced last month. The lawsuit argues that Trump has overstepped the authority granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and that Congress could not delegate such broad, unlimited powers to the president even if it wanted to do so.
"No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences," Jeffrey Schwab, a senior attorney for the LJC, a nonprofit public interest law firm, tells Reason.
Since its passage in 1977, the IEEPA has been used dozens of times to impose sanctions on foreign countries, but it had never been used to set tariffs on imports to America until Trump invoked the law in February to tariff imports from Canada, China, and Mexico. (That use of the law has also been challenged by the LJC in a separate lawsuit.)
On April 2, the White House again invoked the IEEPA to levy 10 percent tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States, and higher tariffs on goods from certain other countries based on a crude (and inaccurate) calculation of the trade barriers imposed by those countries on American goods. Those higher tariffs are now on hold, but the 10 percent universal tariffs took effect last week.
In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs argue that the IEEPA authorizes emergency powers only in response to "unusual and extraordinary" threats to the United States. Trade deficits, which the White House claims are the emergency the tariffs are meant to address, are neither unusual nor extraordinary—and Trump's 10 percent tariffs apply even to imports from countries that run a trade surplus with the United States, like Brazil.
More to the point: It is simply untrue that the wines Schwartz imports from France or Italy constitute an emergency that threatens Americans.
And even if Congress did intend to give the president such sweeping powers, that delegation of authority would be unconstitutional, Schwab argues. That's because it would run afoul of the "major questions" doctrine, which requires Congress to decide issues of "vast economic and political significance" and which has recently been the basis of some prominent Supreme Court cases.
"I think having power over essentially the worldwide economy," Schwab says, "if anything's a major question, it's that."
The post Are Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs Illegal? appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
36 minutes ago
- CNN
Venezuelans in Florida react to Trump's new travel ban
President Donald Trump signed a proclamation to ban travel from several countries to the US, citing security risks, with one of the countries being Venezuela. Venezuelans in Florida reacted to the ban, with one worrying about their visa.

36 minutes ago
Detained Columbia graduate claims ‘irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release
NEW YORK -- A Columbia graduate facing deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus has outlined the 'irreparable harm' caused by his continued detention as a federal judge weighs his release. Mahmoud Khalil said in court filings unsealed Thursday that the 'most immediate and visceral harms' he's faced in his months detained in Louisiana relate to missing out on the birth of his first child in April. 'Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' the 30-year-old legal U.S. resident wrote. 'When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.' He also cited potentially 'career-ending' harms from the ordeal, noting that Oxfam International has already rescinded a job offer to serve as a policy advisor. Even his mother's visa to come to the U.S. to help care for his infant son is also now under federal review, Khalil said. 'As someone who fled prosecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States,' he wrote. 'Why should protesting this Israel government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians result in the erosion of my constitutional rights?' Spokespersons for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Khalil's 13-page statement was among a number of legal declarations his lawyers filed highlighting the wide-ranging negative impacts of his arrest. Dr. Noor Abdalla, his U.S. citizen wife, described the challenges of not having her husband to help navigate their son's birth and the first weeks of his young life. Students and professors at Columbia wrote about the chilling effect Khalil's arrest has had on campus life, with people afraid to attend protests or participate in groups that can be viewed as critical of the Trump administration. Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote the government's primary justification for removing Khalil — that his beliefs may pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy — could open the door to vague and arbitrary enforcement. Khalil was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against .

36 minutes ago
Peruvian migrant acquitted in the first trial over the new militarized zone at US-Mexico border
EL PASO, Texas -- A Peruvian woman who crossed the U.S. border illegally was acquitted Thursday of unauthorized access to a newly designated militarized zone in the first trial under the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute immigrants who cross in certain parts of New Mexico and western Texas. Adely Vanessa De La Cruz-Alvarez, 21, was arrested last month near the West Texas town of Tornillo after she entered the U.S. from Mexico by walking across the riverbed of the Rio Grande, court documents show. In addition to being charged with entering the country illegally, she was charged with accessing a military zone. She is among several other immigrants who have been charged under the law since President Donald Trump's administration transferred oversight of a strip of land along the border to the military. It is as part of a new approach the Department of Justice is taking to crack down on illegal immigration. The Associated Press left messages Thursday with De La Cruz-Alvarez's attorney, Veronica Teresa Lerma. The lawyer told The Texas Tribune the acquittal is significant. 'Hopefully, this sets the tone for the federal government,' Lerma said, 'so they know what the El Paso community will do with these charges.' Even before the woman's case went to trial, federal magistrate judges in neighboring New Mexico had dismissed similar cases, finding little evidence that immigrants knew about the zones. Lerma was convicted of entering the country illegally and was already facing deportation, but could have faced up to 18 months in prison for entering the militarized zone. Despite the verdict, U.S. Attorney Justin Simmons of the Western District of Texas said his office will continue to aggressively prosecute National Defense Area violations. 'At the end of the day, another illegal alien has been found guilty of illegally entering the country in violation of the improper entry statute and will be removed from the United States,' Simmons said in a statement. "That's a win for America." The administration wants to sharply increase the removal of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally as Trump seeks to make good on his pledge of mass deportations. The administration has deployed thousands of troops to the border, while arrests have plunged to the lowest levels since the mid-1960s.