Latest news with #Vecchione
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs could face more than one legal challenge
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.
Politico
04-04-2025
- Business
- Politico
Trump's tariffs could face more than one legal challenge
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.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's China tariffs face legal challenge from conservative group calling them ‘unlawful'
A conservative legal group is challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on China, calling them "an unlawful attempt" to make Americans pay higher taxes on Chinese imports. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed an initial complaint in Florida district court Thursday, challenging Trump's "unlawful use of emergency power to impose a tariff on all imports from China." "By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress's right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution's separation of powers," Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel at NCLA, said in a statement released. Some Countries Targeted By Trump Tariffs Seek Negotiations, China Says 'No Winners In Trade Wars' Trump issued an executive order on Feb. 1 titled "Imposing Duties to Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China," and amended it on Mar. 3 to raise tariffs on Chinese imports from 10% to 20%. Plaintiff Emily Ley, owner of Simplified, a Pensacola, Florida-based company, argues Trump's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the tariffs is unlawful. The plaintiff also argues that her business will be harmed as a result of Trump's action. Read On The Fox News App "The key thing for all of this is that IEEPA does not provide for the tariff power, and you know that because when Congress does do it, they use the word, and they say how the president is supposed to do it," John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at NCLA, told Fox News Digital. Vecchione notes that the complaint delineates the various statutes Trump used in his first term to impose tariffs, saying that in this instance, he is "using the wrong statute." "Here, [Trump] declares an emergency, and then he says that his tariffs fit the emergency, that they're necessary for the emergency," Vecchione said. "IEEPA requires that they be necessary for the emergency, and they're not." Trump Touts Return Of The 'American Dream' In Historic Tariff Announcement The plaintiff argues that the law permits the president to "order sanctions as a rapid response to international emergencies," but does not authorize him to "impose tariffs on the American people." "President Trump's executive orders imposing a China tariff are, therefore, ultra vires and unconstitutional," the complaint states. If the president is granted such authority, the group argues, he would have "nearly unlimited authority to commandeer Congress's power over tariffs." "He would be empowered to declare a national emergency based on some long-running national problem," the complaint continues, "then impose tariffs purportedly in the name of that emergency – thus sidestepping the detailed constraints Congress has placed on the tariff authority it has granted." NCLA is asking the court to block the administration from implementing or enforcing the executive orders and to vacate "all resulting modifications" to the tariff schedule. In response to the lawsuit, White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields defended the executive orders, telling Fox News Digital, "President Trump has broad authority to impose tariffs to address issues of national emergency, such as the opioid pandemic. The Trump administration looks forward to victory in court." The suit comes just days after the president unveiled his tariff plan during a speech in the White House Rose Garden at a highly anticipated "Make America Wealthy Again" event. "Now it's our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt," Trump said on April 2. "And it will all happen very quickly. With today's action, we are finally going to be able to make America great again, greater than ever before." How We Got To Liberation Day: A Look At Trump's Past Comments On Tariffs Trump was joined by several Cabinet members in the Rose Garden on Thursday for his first official presidential event since taking office in January. During the speech, Trump announced that China would be hit with a 34% tariff. In response, China declared retaliatory measures on Friday, saying it would impose matching 34% tariffs on U.S. goods. The new tariffs are set to take effect April 10, according to The Wall Street Journal. "China played it wrong, they panicked – the one thing they cannot afford to do," Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social. Fox News Digital's Emma Colton and Greg Norman contributed to this report. Original article source: Trump's China tariffs face legal challenge from conservative group calling them 'unlawful'
Fox News
04-04-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Trump's China tariffs face legal challenge from conservative group calling them ‘unlawful'
A conservative legal group is challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on China, calling them "an unlawful attempt" to make Americans pay higher taxes on Chinese imports. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed an initial complaint in Florida district court Thursday, challenging Trump's "unlawful use of emergency power to impose a tariff on all imports from China." "By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress's right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution's separation of powers," Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel at NCLA, said in a statement released. Trump issued an executive order on Feb. 1 titled "Imposing Duties to Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China," and amended it on Mar. 3 to raise tariffs on Chinese imports from 10% to 20%. Plaintiff Emily Ley, owner of Simplified, a Pensacola, Florida-based company, argues Trump's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the tariffs is unlawful. The plaintiff also argues that her business will be harmed as a result of Trump's action. "The key thing for all of this is that IEEPA does not provide for the tariff power, and you know that because when Congress does do it, they use the word, and they say how the president is supposed to do it," John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at NCLA, told Fox News Digital. Vecchione notes that the complaint delineates the various statutes Trump used in his first term to impose tariffs, saying that in this instance, he is "using the wrong statute." "Here, [Trump] declares an emergency, and then he says that his tariffs fit the emergency, that they're necessary for the emergency," Vecchione said. "IEEPA requires that they be necessary for the emergency, and they're not." The plaintiff argues that the law permits the president to "order sanctions as a rapid response to international emergencies," but does not authorize him to "impose tariffs on the American people." "President Trump's executive orders imposing a China tariff are, therefore, ultra vires and unconstitutional," the complaint states. If the president is granted such authority, the group argues, he would have "nearly unlimited authority to commandeer Congress's power over tariffs." "He would be empowered to declare a national emergency based on some long-running national problem," the complaint continues, "then impose tariffs purportedly in the name of that emergency – thus sidestepping the detailed constraints Congress has placed on the tariff authority it has granted." NCLA is asking the court to block the administration from implementing or enforcing the executive orders and to vacate "all resulting modifications" to the tariff schedule. In response to the lawsuit, White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields defended the executive orders, telling Fox News Digital, "President Trump has broad authority to impose tariffs to address issues of national emergency, such as the opioid pandemic. The Trump administration looks forward to victory in court." The suit comes just days after the president unveiled his tariff plan during a speech in the White House Rose Garden at a highly anticipated "Make America Wealthy Again" event. "Now it's our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt," Trump said on April 2. "And it will all happen very quickly. With today's action, we are finally going to be able to make America great again, greater than ever before." Trump was joined by several Cabinet members in the Rose Garden on Thursday for his first official presidential event since taking office in January. During the speech, Trump announced that China would be hit with a 34% tariff. In response, China declared retaliatory measures on Friday, saying it would impose matching 34% tariffs on U.S. goods. The new tariffs are set to take effect April 10, according to The Wall Street Journal. "China played it wrong, they panicked – the one thing they cannot afford to do," Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social.
