Twelve States Challenge Trump's Tariffs in Court
In a significant legal development, twelve states, predominantly blue and purple, spearheaded by Oregon, have come together to file a lawsuit in the US Court of International Trade. This collective action aims to contest the sweeping tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The full complaint detailing their arguments is accessible here.
The claims put forth by the coalition of states bear a striking resemblance to those articulated in a previous lawsuit initiated by the Liberty Justice Center and myself on behalf of five American businesses that have suffered substantial losses due to these tariffs. This earlier suit was also filed in the Court of International Trade and sought to address similar grievances. Moreover, the arguments mirror those made by California in a separate legal action filed in federal district court, highlighting a growing trend of legal challenges against these tariffs.
At the core of their challenge is the assertion that the IEEPA, enacted in 1977, does not provide the legal framework for imposing tariffs. The states contend that the stance taken by the Trump administration contradicts constitutional nondelegation principlesalthough they have opted not to explicitly use the term "nondelegation" in their arguments. It would be beneficial for them to more clearly state how these tariffs violate the "major questions" doctrine as well. Additionally, they argue that the trade deficits cited as justification for the so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs do not constitute an "unusual and extraordinary threat," which the IEEPA requires to enable its application. It remains to be seen if they will delve deeper into these crucial legal principles as the case advances.
In a recent article for Lawfare titled "The Constitutional Case Against Trump's Trade War," I elaborated on the various reasons why the tariffs set forth by Trump may be viewed as illegal. While our lawsuit specifically targets the extensive "Liberation Day" tariffs, the multistate plaintiffs are also contesting previous IEEPA tariffs that were levied on Canada, Mexico, and China, which were ostensibly justified by concerns over fentanyl smuggling. In a post I wrote back in February, I argued that these tariffs, too, stand on shaky legal ground and could be challenged under the nondelegation and major questions doctrines.
Additionally, two other lawsuits are currently in play concerning Trumps IEEPA tariffs. One of these is brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is contesting tariffs against China on behalf of an importer, while another is filed by members of the Blackfeet Nation Native American tribe, targeting tariffs imposed on Canada. It is anticipated that more legal actions will emerge from various groups as this issue continues to unfold.
We extend a warm welcome to the twelve states joining this crucial legal battle! It is noteworthy that this contentious issue has fostered a unique coalition, bringing together a diverse range of individuals and organizations. This includes conservatives aligned with the NCLA, libertarians such as myself, the legal teams at the Liberty Justice Center, state governments from predominantly blue and purple regions, Native American representatives, and a bipartisan array of esteemed legal scholars alongside former officials.
Ultimately, it seems that Donald Trumps controversial approach to tariff implementation has inadvertently united a wide spectrum of stakeholders in a fight against what they perceive as an overreach of presidential power. Perhaps it is only fitting that he, himself, has played a role in galvanizing such a broad coalition!
