President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.
Eight more cases have been filed at the Court of International Trade contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act following oral argument at the Supreme Court in the lead cases on the issue, during which many of the justices expressed skepticism over the validity of such tariffs.
A group of seven importers, led by Innovative Eyewear, is the filer of another lawsuit challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, following the Supreme Court's oral argument in the lead cases on the issue in which many of the justices appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. The lawsuit is the fourth of its kind to be filed at the Court of International Trade in the wake of the oral argument as importers go to court to ensure they have access to refunds should the high court strike down President Donald Trump's reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs (see 2511060015) (Innovative Eyewear v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00247).
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 may be a more limited "fall-back option" for the Trump administration should the Supreme Court strike down all the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Dr. Mona Paulsen, law professor at the London School of Economic Law School, wrote in a blog post.
There are probably five justices who will find that the reciprocal tariffs were not permissible under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that the president used to impose them, according to Georgetown University Law Center Professor Marty Lederman. Lederman, a senior fellow in the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, was one of two guests on the weekly Washington International Trade Association podcast that aired Nov. 7.
Three new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 6 on the legality of President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as his authority to impose tariffs, on the day after the Supreme Court appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. One suit was filed by three importers, led by Del Monte Fresh Produce and represented by customs lawyer Myron Barlow; another was filed by importer Turn5, represented by Crowell & Moring; and a third was filed by importer Netuno USA by trade lawyer Vinicius Adam (Del Monte Fresh Produce v. United States, CIT # 25-00244) (Netuno USA v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00245) (Turn5 v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00246).
Two Trump appointees, along with the three liberal justices, had sharp questions for the Trump administration's advocate as the Supreme Court held a nearly three-hour hearing on the constitutionality of tariffs imposed around the world under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he will attend the Supreme Court's Nov. 5 oral argument on whether President Donald Trump can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. Speaking on Fox News Nov. 3, Bessent said he's going to "hopefully" sit in the "front row, and have a ring-side seat" to the argument (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
President Donald Trump on Nov. 2 said he won't attend the Supreme Court's oral argument on Nov. 5 on whether the president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said he didn't want to call attention to himself, adding that "[i]t's not about me, it's about our country" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Trump administration filed its reply brief on Oct. 30 in the Supreme Court cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, addressing a host of arguments relating to the text of the IEEPA, all of the statute's requirements and the history of the measure (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).