logo
Trump's tariffs could face more than one legal challenge

Trump's tariffs could face more than one legal challenge

Politico04-04-2025
President Donald Trump now faces one legal challenge to his historic tariffs — and even more lawsuits could be on the way.
A nonprofit legal group, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in northern Florida Thursday night, arguing Trump's use of a national emergency law to justify the 20 percent tariffs that Trump imposed on China earlier this year is illegal. The White House argued that China's supply of fentanyl and its precursor chemicals to the United States constituted a national emergency.
Lawyers and representatives for various business groups are mulling similar challenges to the new duties the president unveiled Wednesday, which cited a national emergency due to the trade deficit, according to two people familiar with the discussions, granted anonymity to discuss strategies that have not yet been finalized.
'All options are being considered,' one of those people, a senior trade association executive, said.
At issue is a nearly-50-year-old law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that Trump is citing to impose both the duties on China and the global 'reciprocal tariffs' he announced this week. The 1977 law gives the president broad authority to respond to a national emergency. But Trump is the first president to use it to impose tariffs, which is a power the U.S. Constitution assigned to Congress. And legal scholars
say it's possible a judge would find such a move illegal
, unraveling the White House's bid to hit trading partners with duties not seen in a century.
'IEEPA has a long list of things that the president can do and nowhere does it say 'tariffs,'' said Liza Goitein, senior director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute. 'There is absolutely a basis on which to challenge the use of IEEPA for tariffs based on the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence,' Goitein added, and 'there's some likelihood of success on this lawsuit on that grounds.'
John Vecchione, a lawyer for NCLA, which filed the lawsuit against the China tariffs on behalf of Emily Ley Paper Inc, elaborated. 'If this was 'Red Dawn' and the enemy was coming across the border and the president invoked IEEPA, he still can't put in tariffs,' Vecchione said.
'It's not what it's for. He can embargo [our enemies]. He can cut off their banking. He can do a lot under IEEPA, but tariffs are not in it.'
'One of the ways any normal person would know this, is it's been around 50 years since the Iranian crisis. No one has ever imposed a tariff under it,' Vecchione added.
Pensacola-based Emily Ley Paper owns Simplified, a company that sells paper products and planners for women. It imports from China and has faced higher duties because of Trump's action.
'Under current plans, the new tariffs will impose hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs on Simplified,' the lawsuit says. 'If it moves its manufacturing operations away from China, this would impose further costs. Either course would require Simplified to raise its prices to its customers and either reduce its already small staff or not hire more staff.'
The Retail Litigation Center welcomed the case. It is part of the Retail Industry Leaders Association,
which represents big companies like Target, Best Buy and Gap
.
'As the suit explains, Congress did not give the President the authority to unilaterally enact tariffs that so profoundly affect the economy and Americans' pocketbooks,' the RLC said. 'Before lasting damage is done to the economy and family budgets, leading retailers support timely judicial review of this abuse of authority from the White House.'
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Some companies and trade associations believe Trump's national emergency declaration for his new reciprocal tariffs is on even shakier legal ground than the national emergency he declared for his China tariffs.
'It would appear that the new tariffs that were announced on Wednesday under IEEPA are the weakest link and the one most susceptible to a successful challenge,' said one industry representative, who was granted anonymity to discuss a matter still under consideration. 'They're also the most dramatic … I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more lawsuits coming on the tariffs that were announced on Wednesday.'
Those tariffs haven't gone into effect yet, however, with the first tranche — a flat 10 percent duty on all foreign imports — due to be imposed early Saturday and a second round of higher duties on 60-odd trading partners set to go into force on April 9. It's unlikely any group will file a lawsuit until after the tariffs officially go forward.
Vecchione said he disagreed that the case against Trump's fentanyl tariffs is weaker than a potential case against the new reciprocal tariffs. That's because IEEPA doesn't give the president the authority to impose tariffs, regardless of the emergency, he argued.
Ley Paper and the NCLA are not seeking a preliminary injunction to immediately stop Trump from collecting the duties because such decisions can be appealed and slow down the case, Vecchione said. But they do hope for a ruling by the end of the year that Trump's action was unlawful and unconstitutional, he said.
Some lawmakers agree that Congress has delegated too much of its power over tariffs to the executive branch.
A bill filed this week
by Sens.
Chuck Grassley
(R-Iowa) and
Maria Cantwell
(D-Wash.) would end presidential tariffs after 60 days unless Congress votes to extend them. It
gained several new Republican supporters on Friday
, but is still unlikely to move forward in the Republican-controlled Congress, where
most in the president's party continue to defer to Trump
.
Likewise, many
business groups are deeply fearful of challenging Trump
in public, particularly given the chance he could quickly scale back the tariffs. They point to Trump's swift reversal last month on tariffs targeting Canada and Mexico, which he largely paused amid an uproar from business leaders and even some Republicans.
Vechhione said he thought fear was the main reason no one else has filed a case yet.
'I think some in the profession are afraid. They're just afraid, and their clients are afraid. They're afraid of the administration,' he said.
Caitlin Oprysko and Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DOE announces student loan forgiveness program rule change
DOE announces student loan forgiveness program rule change

UPI

timea few seconds ago

  • UPI

DOE announces student loan forgiveness program rule change

1 of 2 | Student debt relief activists rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. Monday, the Department of Education announced a rules change in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness program. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo Aug. 18 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Education issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Monday that would prevent benefits under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program from being "improperly provided to borrowers whose employers are engaged in activities with a substantial illegal purpose." The notice allows open comments, though the agency isn't required to act based on those comments. It's an attempt at government transparency, required by the Administrative Procedures Act. "President [Donald] Trump has given the Department a historic mandate to restore the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to its original purpose -- supporting public servants who strengthen their communities and serve the public good, not benefiting businesses engaged in illegal activity that harm Americans," Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement. "The federal government has a vital interest in deterring unlawful conduct, and we're moving quickly to ensure employers don't benefit while breaking the law." The statement said the "unlawful conduct" includes "supporting terrorism, aiding or abetting discrimination or violations of immigration laws, or child abuse, would be excluded as qualifying PSLF employers under the proposed changes." The statement didn't offer examples, and the language about determining which organizations will be disqualified is vague. "Public Service Loan Forgiveness was enacted in a bipartisan way to help incentivize hardworking people to go into public service," Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, told NBC News. "The Trump administration is trying, through executive authority, to limit who can access this benefit based on a litmus test of who they like and who they don't like." Comments on the proposed rules can be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at The department will not accept comments submitted by fax or by e-mail or comments submitted after the comment period closes. The department must receive comments on or before Sept. 17. President George W. Bush signed the PSLF into law in 2007. It allows many not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of payments.

Full List of States Suing Trump Administration for Immigration
Full List of States Suing Trump Administration for Immigration

Newsweek

timea few seconds ago

  • Newsweek

Full List of States Suing Trump Administration for Immigration

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeking to block the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal crime victim funds from states that do not comply with the Trump administration's immigration enforcement measures. The suit challenges Justice Department conditions that would cut off funding to states or subgrantees that decline to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, deny U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers access to facilities, or fail to provide advance notice of release dates for individuals who may be wanted by ICE because of their immigration status. As of Monday afternoon, Democratic attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin had joined the lawsuit. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

Trump, Zelenskiy Play Nice With Eye Toward Putin Meeting
Trump, Zelenskiy Play Nice With Eye Toward Putin Meeting

Bloomberg

timea few seconds ago

  • Bloomberg

Trump, Zelenskiy Play Nice With Eye Toward Putin Meeting

US President Donald Trump said he hoped to secure an agreement for a trilateral meeting with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy as he welcomed the Ukrainian leader to the White House for high-stakes talks on bringing an end to Russia's war on Ukraine. 'If everything works out well today we'll have a trilateral and I think there will be a reasonable chance of ending the war when we do that,' Trump told reporters Monday during an Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy. The tone between the two leaders was notably improved from Zelenskiy's last visit to the Oval Office in February, which erupted into a bitter public clash with Trump and briefly led to the US halting military support. Bloomberg News Managing Editor for US Economy and Government Mario Parker joins Bloomberg Businessweek Daily to discuss. (Source: Bloomberg)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store