With New York standing atop, 12 states in the U.S. have joined hands to challenge instinctive tariff impositions laid down by Donald Trump, claiming that such tariffs were unconstitutional and beyond the authority of Congress. The plaintiffs filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, thereby testifying against Trump’s exercise of his emergency powers to impose tariffs on select imports from different countries.
This suit is headed by Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, and Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, who assert that the President acted outside the law. The question before the court is whether Trump had the authority to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose trade restrictions.
IEEPA invoked for unprecedented tariff moves
The IEEPA was an act approved in the 1970s that put into place restrictions on the President’s response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” regarded as coming from outside the United States, provided that a national emergency is in effect. Trump asserted this law when he imposed tariffs on goods from China, Mexico, Canada, and a host of other countries. The belief that this constituted a total abuse of the statute was asserted by the complaint, which stated that it has never really been used by any prior President to impose tariffs.
“By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs… the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy,” the lawsuit argues.
Highly recommended: When will Elon Musk stop working for DOGE?
White house pushes back
The Biden administration has declined to comment in detail on the lawsuit; however, former Trump aides have been particularly caustic in their rebuttal. White House spokesperson Kush Desai dismissed the lawsuit, stating Attorney General Letitia James “is prioritizing a witch hunt against President Trump over protecting the safety and well-being of their constituents.”
Also defending the former president’s use of emergency powers, Desai claimed that they were fully within their rights to declare “national emergencies” over events such as illicit fentanyl trafficking and the widening trade deficit.
Trade tensions and market instability
Trump’s tariffs were described as an effort to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and return what Trump termed “fair trade.” In practice, they initiated a volley of retaliations from international trading partners, especially in China. After announcing “reciprocal” tariffs in a speech dubbed “Liberation Day” on April 2, Trump slapped a staggering 145% tariff on Chinese goods, leading to a free fall in global markets.
While Trump announced a 90-day moratorium on many of the tariffs, tensions with China rose, thus prolonging the ongoing trade stalemate. Further, 25% duties were imposed on goods imported from neighboring Mexican and Canadian businessmen, straining diplomatic and economic relations even more.
Read this article to have a better understanding of the trade war: What has Trump said about cutting China tariffs? Is the trade war ending?
Momentum for legal action against tariffs
A flurry of lawsuits targeting Trump’s tariffs has arisen, the latest being one spearheaded by New York. This action is not the first undertaken by applicant states against Trump’s strategy for imposing tariffs. California had invoked similar complaints under the IEEPA in its lawsuit. Legal experts point to a constellation of growing cases, which may finally compel courts to determine the limits of presidential authority over trade.
This outcome has the potential to foster a new shape in the use of executive power in international economics since these global markets are still feeling the repercussions of vigorous trade policy imposed by Trump.
If you love American politics, what are your thoughts on this? Can Trump fire Jerome Powell? Here’s what could happen to the Fed chairman after POTUS’ attack on interest rates
Drop your thoughts in the comment section!
