‘A figment of his own imagination’: Trump tariffs heading to court to determine whether president exceeded his power

A lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s widespread tariffs is moving through the U.S. Court of International Trade, creating a major legal test of the president’s executive power. The central issue in the dispute is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977 gives the president the authority to impose tariffs on a global scale without approval from Congress.

According to Forbes, five U.S. businesses that depend on imported goods that are not easily available domestically filed the lawsuit. The lawsuits claimed that Trump’s actions go beyond his constitutional authority. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, which was used to justify invoking IEEPA to enforce the tariffs, has no real basis.

Their legal complaint states that long-standing trade deficits, which have existed for decades without causing major economic damage, do not qualify as a national emergency. Per NBC, they claim that while IEEPA gives the president certain economic powers during a genuine national emergency, including restricting or blocking imports, it does not specifically allow the president to impose tariffs.

The legality of Trump’s tariffs is in question

The lawsuits also argue that even if IEEPA did grant this authority, the president’s actions would still be unconstitutional because the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to set and collect taxes. The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an order stopping the tariffs immediately, saying that the tariffs are causing serious harm to their businesses through higher costs, supply chain problems, and the risk of shutting down.

They are also seeking compensation for any tariffs they have already paid. The Department of Justice (DOJ), which is representing the Trump administration, argues that IEEPA does give the president the authority to take these actions. The DOJ’s legal filing states that Congress, through IEEPA, legally gave the president the power to control imports, including imposing tariffs, under certain conditions.

The DOJ argues that the president’s declaration of a national emergency is enough to justify using this authority under the law. In April, the Court of International Trade initially refused to stop the tariffs right away, saying the plaintiffs had not clearly shown that they would face immediate and irreparable harm if the tariffs stayed in place while the case was being fully reviewed. However, another hearing is planned to further consider the plaintiffs’ request for a broader order blocking the tariffs.

If the court decides the tariffs are unlawful, it could greatly limit the president’s ability to use tariffs as part of trade policy. This could influence ongoing trade negotiations and even change the way international trade relations work.

The temporary reduction of some tariffs, including a 90-day delay on many tariffs and a separate 90-day pause agreed to by the U.S. and China, makes the case slightly more complicated. While these temporary changes lessen the immediate effects of the tariffs, they do not resolve the core legal question of whether the president had the authority to impose them in the first place.