Litigation Attorney Files 2nd Amicus Brief at SCOTUS Attacking IEEPA Tariffs
Civil litigation attorney Corey Biazzo filed the second amicus brief against the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, on Oct. 8, arguing that IEEPA categorically doesn't allow for tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
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.
Biazzo filed his brief at the Supreme Court in the twin cases on the legality of IEEPA tariffs, and, in particular, the legality of the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico to combat fentanyl trafficking. The high court is set to hear oral argument on Nov. 5. While amicus briefs in support of the challengers to the tariffs are due on Oct. 24, Biazzo joins Consumer Watchdog in submitting briefs early (see 2510080045).
The amicus brief centered on the non-delegation doctrine, arguing that by using the IEEPA to impose a large array of tariffs, Trump "appears to have attempted to usurp the Legislature’s Article I power to 'lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.'" The brief added that the IEEPA doesn't delegate "unbounded unilateral tariff authority to the President."
Even if the text of the IEEPA, which lets the president "regulate ... importation," is flexible enough to allow for tariffs, "foundational doctrines require a narrow construction." Biazzo invoked the high court's major questions doctrine, which says the executive can only regulate on issues of massive political or economic significance upon explicit delegation from Congress, arguing that there's "no clear authorization for the implementation of a wide spread tariffing regime under the IEEPA."
He added that the high court "should make it clear that broad, revenue-raising tariffs require statutes from Congress to enact, pursuant to Article I Sec. 8, Cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Anything less unconstitutionally transfers Congress’ taxing power to the Executive and erodes the separation of powers that was designed by the Framers."