Court challenge could force an end to Trump’s trade wars this month

US President Donald Trump’s trade wars could be forced to end this month, even without dozens of trading partners having to make concessions.

The decision rests with the US Court of International Trade (CIT), a little-known, New York-based federal court that adjudicates cases related to trade and customs law.

The court will hear oral arguments in a case questioning Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) last month to impose sweeping new tariffs, and his subsequent 90-day suspension of the highest levies applied to approximately 60 trading partners.

If the court grants the plaintiffs’ request for an emergency preliminary injunction, the trade negotiations that the Trump administration is currently rushing to complete with dozens of countries could be upended.

Opponents of the tariffs, according to a report in POLITICO, argue that Trump has violated the Constitution and hope the US Court of International Trade will grant a preliminary injunction by the end of the month.

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center, a conservative constitutional rights group representing VOS Selections (a New York-based wine and spirits company) and other small businesses suing over Trump’s tariffs, stated that many businesses will not survive if the tariffs are not lifted, as the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court.

An injunction would also jeopardize Trump’s efforts to use the threat of country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs to negotiate new trade deals with dozens of nations.

Trump announced the first of these deals with the United Kingdom on Thursday, though many details remain unclear. The White House has also been negotiating an agreement with China to reduce tariffs and establish a bilateral mechanism to resolve long-standing trade disputes.

To justify previous tariffs on China and the largely suspended 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump had declared a national emergency due to immigrants and fentanyl crossing the border. However, the VOS case challenges the reciprocal tariffs Trump announced on April 2.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group representing manufacturers who support import protection, praised Trump’s decision to use emergency law to implement his trade agenda as a “bold and long-overdue reset of the global trading system.”

But figures like former Republican Senator John Danforth argue that Trump is using a “flimsy pretext” to usurp the taxing and trade powers vested in Congress by the founders.

“This is the biggest issue our country has faced since its founding. This is about the concentration of power in one hand and James Madison’s idea of spreading power across various branches of government,” Danforth said in an interview.

Danforth, along with a group including former Republican senators George Allen and Chuck Hagel, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, submitted an amicus brief criticizing Trump’s decision and urging the CIT to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from collecting tariffs while the cases are pending.

The brief states, “Since the founding of the Republic, the power to tax – like the power to raise revenue – has belonged exclusively to Congress. This is not a formality. This country was born out of the slogan ‘No taxation without representation,’ meaning that the power to tax, raise revenue, and determine the economic obligations of the people must belong to the elected representatives of the people.”

Danforth argued that the argument in their brief goes to the very heart of the matter. “This isn’t about the appropriateness of tariffs or some legal issues. It’s a constitutional issue. The question is, ‘Can the President seize the power to tax from [Congress]?’ but I would also add to that the power to control foreign trade,” the former senator said.

Schwab, lead counsel for the VOS case in the CIT on Tuesday, said they presented a series of arguments they believe the court will find persuasive.

“[Fundamentally,] we do not believe that the IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs or implement customs duties,” Schwab stated.

The plaintiffs also contest Trump’s assertion that a “large and persistent annual merchandise trade deficit” justifies imposing tariffs as a national emergency, given that the US has had a trade deficit for 50 years. Schwab said this gave Congress ample time to act if its members deemed it necessary.

The plaintiffs also advance several more technical legal arguments. One is the “major questions doctrine,” which requires an explicit delegation of authority from Congress when the executive branch takes actions exceeding an undefined threshold of “economic and political significance.” The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s tariffs clearly surpass this threshold.

Another somewhat related argument is the “nondelegation doctrine,” which states that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch without providing an intelligible principle to guide the executive’s discretion.

Schwab stated, “Here, what the Trump administration is essentially saying is that they have the authority to impose tariffs without any oversight, and they can do it whenever they want, at whatever rate they want. If the court interprets [the IEEPA] this way, we believe it will find it unconstitutional.”