US President Donald Trump\u2019s trade wars could be forced to end this month, even without dozens of trading partners having to make concessions.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The court will hear oral arguments in a case questioning Trump\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Opponents of the tariffs, according to a report in POLITICO<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s tariffs, stated that many businesses will not survive if the tariffs are not lifted, as the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n An injunction would also jeopardize Trump\u2019s efforts to use the threat of country-specific \u201creciprocal\u201d tariffs to negotiate new trade deals with dozens of nations.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group representing manufacturers who support import protection, praised Trump\u2019s decision to use emergency law to implement his trade agenda as a \u201cbold and long-overdue reset of the global trading system.\u201d<\/p>\n But figures like former Republican Senator John Danforth argue that Trump is using a \u201cflimsy pretext\u201d to usurp the taxing and trade powers vested in Congress by the founders.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the biggest issue our country has faced since its founding. This is about the concentration of power in one hand and James Madison\u2019s idea of spreading power across various branches of government,\u201d Danforth said in an interview.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s decision and urging the CIT to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from collecting tariffs while the cases are pending.<\/p>\n The brief states, \u201cSince the founding of the Republic, the power to tax \u2013 like the power to raise revenue \u2013 has belonged exclusively to Congress. This is not a formality. This country was born out of the slogan \u2018No taxation without representation,\u2019 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Danforth argued that the argument in their brief goes to the very heart of the matter. \u201cThis isn\u2019t about the appropriateness of tariffs or some legal issues. It\u2019s a constitutional issue. The question is, \u2018Can the President seize the power to tax from [Congress]?\u2019 but I would also add to that the power to control foreign trade,\u201d the former senator said.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201c[Fundamentally,] we do not believe that the IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs or implement customs duties,\u201d Schwab stated.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs also contest Trump\u2019s assertion that a \u201clarge and persistent annual merchandise trade deficit\u201d 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.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs also advance several more technical legal arguments. One is the \u201cmajor questions doctrine,\u201d which requires an explicit delegation of authority from Congress when the executive branch takes actions exceeding an undefined threshold of \u201ceconomic and political significance.\u201d The plaintiffs argue that Trump\u2019s tariffs clearly surpass this threshold.<\/p>\n Another somewhat related argument is the \u201cnondelegation doctrine,\u201d which states that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch without providing an intelligible principle to guide the executive’s discretion.<\/p>\n Schwab stated, \u201cHere, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" US President Donald Trump\u2019s 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9489,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[176],"tags":[9894,9892,319,9895,9891,9897,8754,9893,2360,1739,8744,9890,9896],"class_list":["post-9488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-america","tag-congressional-authority","tag-constitutional-challenge","tag-donald-trump","tag-executive-power","tag-ieepa","tag-liberty-justice-center","tag-national-emergency","tag-separation-of-powers","tag-tariffs","tag-trade-deficit","tag-trade-wars","tag-us-court-of-international-trade","tag-vos-selections"],"yoast_head":"\n