Washington, July 31 (AP) - President Donald Trump has been aggressively reshaping American trade policy, pressuring the European Union, Japan, and other trading partners to accept unprecedentedly high tariffs on their exports to the United States. However, his drastic approach, bypassing Congress to implement sweeping tariffs on numerous global economies, has not gone without opposition. Currently, he is facing at least seven lawsuits alleging an overreach of executive authority, with plaintiffs seeking to overturn his most significant tariffs. Recently, they secured an initial victory.
In May, the US Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, comprised a three-judge panel that ruled Trump had overstepped his bounds when declaring a national emergency to impose tariffs on nearly all countries worldwide. Specifically, the court combined challenges from five businesses and 12 US states into one case to reach this decision. The case now progresses to its next phase. On Thursday, the 11-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, typically known for patent law, will hear oral arguments from both the Trump administration and the opposing states and businesses. Though the court previously allowed the government to continue collecting tariffs during litigation, the case’s implications—concerning the president's authority to enact taxes independently of Congress with profound economic impacts globally—suggest it may ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.
Trump is a staunch proponent of tariffs, viewing them as a versatile economic lever capable of reviving manufacturing in the US, safeguarding domestic industries, covering costs of substantial tax cuts, exerting pressure on other nations, and even ending conflicts. The US Constitution delegates the taxation power, inclusive of tariffs, to Congress. Yet, over time, legislators have gradually ceded trade policy control to the Executive. Trump has zealously exploited this power vacuum, elevating the average US tariff to over 18%, the highest since 1934, according to Yale University's Budget Lab.
The focal point of this legal battle is Trump's invocation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs without congressional consent or prior investigations. Instead, he declared a national emergency to justify the import taxes. In February, he cited illegal drug trafficking and immigration issues to levy tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. Subsequently, on April 2—dubbed “Liberation Day” by Trump—he utilized the IEEPA to declare “reciprocal” tariffs of up to 50% on trade-deficit nations, with a 10% “baseline” tariff on others. The emergency declared was the ongoing US trade deficit.
Though the reciprocal tariffs were later suspended, they remain a looming threat, potentially reinstated Friday on countries that fail to negotiate trade deals with the US or receive specific tariff rate directives from Trump himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency powers law does not permit such tariff applications, contending that a trade deficit fails to constitute an “unusual and extraordinary” threat justifying emergency declarations under the law. Historically, the US has consistently experienced trade deficits for nearly half a century, irrespective of economic conditions.
The Trump administration counters this by citing a precedent, pointing to a court's approval of President Richard Nixon's emergency tariff imposition during a 1971 economic crisis under the authority of the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, from which the IEEPA borrows legal language. Yet, in May, the trade court rejected this rationale, asserting that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceeded any authority granted to the President” under the emergency powers statute.
Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal organization representing businesses in the lawsuit against Trump, remarked, “The president doesn’t have the prerogative to use open-ended authority grants to pursue personal agendas.” Regarding tariffs concerning drug trafficking and immigration levied on Canada, China, and Mexico, the trade court found they did not meet the IEEPA’s stipulation to directly “deal with” the referenced problem.
Notably, this legal challenge does not pertain to other tariffs Trump imposed, such as those on foreign steel, aluminum, and autos, which followed Commerce Department investigations deeming those imports threats to US national security. Additionally, it does not encompass tariffs imposed on China during his initial tenure—maintained by President Joe Biden—instituted after a government inquiry found China engaged in unfair practices favoring their tech firms over Western competitors, including those from the United States. (AP) GRS GRS
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
