US Says President Needs IEEPA Tariffs to Address Host of Foreign Policy Issues
The U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Concurrent with the motion, the U.S. filed declarations from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio all arguing that IEEPA tariffs are a key tool in protecting U.S. national security and economic interests.
President Donald Trump is currently facing multiple lawsuits against tariff action taken under IEEPA, three of which were filed at the trade court. One of them was brought by Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian legal advocacy group, that recently filed its motion for summary judgment against certain IEEPA tariff action (see 2504250038).
In its opposition to this motion, the government emphasized the need for the president to have wide latitude to address issues in foreign affairs. The U.S. said the executive is "today engaged in high-stakes negotiations, diplomacy, and preparation on multiple precarious fronts around the globe," including a standoff between India and Pakistan that ended in a ceasefire "brokered" by the U.S. The ceasefire was only achieved after Trump offered both sides "trading access with the United States," the brief said.
This environment requires the president to have his full slate of tools, including IEEPA tariffs, the brief said.
The government argued that axing one of these tools via "judicial intervention would be cascading and devastating," adding that courts "lack the institutional competence and authority to interfere in these complex and delicate foreign affairs and national-security matters." Since the "stakes are so high," only the president can "properly and effectively protect the United States from foreign threats," the brief said.
The U.S. then sought to defend Trump's specific uses of IEEPA that are being challenged by the Pacific Legal Foundation -- tariffs on China to address the flow of fentanyl and tariffs to address prolonged U.S. trade deficits. The brief said the tariffs have created significant leverage for the U.S. to extract outcomes from the targeted nations. The government argued that, specifically, the tariffs have so far led to the start of trade talks with 75 nations, "immediate steps to address the illicit-drug crisis" from Mexico and Canada, China's agreement to coordinate with the U.S. to address the flow of fentanyl, a new trade deal with the U.K. and impending new deals on defense.
"None of these successes or this progress could have been possible without President Trump’s actions," the brief said, adding that any attempt from the judiciary to "second-guess the President" would be "unprecedented" and carry "far-reaching consequences to the United States’s foreign, economic, and national-security posture." The government added that such a ruling from CIT would buck Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent and endanger both the U.S. "and the entire world."
The brief said it's "imperative" the court maintain the status quo and "avoid interfering with delicate and complex international diplomacy" while negotiations are ongoing. "This is critical," the U.S. said. "Interfering with the negotiations in their present state would create a foreign-policy disaster."
The brief also contained many of the same defenses the U.S. has brought before the trade court in other cases, including the claim that IEEPA, which says the president can "regulate" imports to address an "unusual and extraordinary threat," provides for tariffs. The government argued that the court can't review whether the declared threat is "unusual and extraordinary," noting a Supreme Court decision that said courts can't review a presidential finding that circumstances are a "special threat," since the courts are "utterly unable to assess their adequacy."
The U.S. also said the court can't "second-guess the President’s chosen means to address the declared emergencies," as claimed by the Pacific Legal Foundation. The "most demanding standard" CIT could apply is the "rational-basis standard," which the president "easily satisfies," the brief said. Lastly, the government contested the foundation's claim that IEEPA is an unconstitutional delegation of power, noting that neither CAFC nor the Supreme Court have found a statute to violate this doctrine in 90 years.