The Liberty Justice Center, a conservative litigation firm, issued a call for plaintiffs to challenge President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on all goods entering the U.S. The group is looking to challenge this use of IEEPA "under the major questions and nondelegation doctrines."
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit on behalf of paper importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, on April 3 challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose 20% tariffs on all goods from China. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Simplified laid out three constitutional and statutory claims against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs and one claim that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act for unlawfully modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his sweeping "retaliatory" tariffs (see 2504020086) has drawn serious speculation about whether the statute can serve as a proper basis for invoking the tariffs. Trade lawyers told us that potential issues arising from the use of IEEPA include the existence of tariff-making authority to address trade deficits under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the "major questions" doctrine and the way in which the tariffs were calculated.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
To date, no major lawsuits challenging any of the new tariff actions taken by President Donald Trump have been filed. The reasons for that include high legal hurdles to success and inconsistency in the implementation of the tariffs, trade lawyers told us.
Wisconsin man Gary Barnes doesn't have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the president's right to impose tariffs, the U.S. argued in a March 21 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The government claimed that Barnes failed to "allege a particularized and concrete injury to himself," and instead claimed that "unidentified American consumers more generally" will be harmed by the supposed constitutional violations the president commits when imposing tariffs (Gary Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on March 17 affirmed the dismissal of steel importer JSW Steel (USA)'s suit against three U.S. steel makers, which alleged that the companies illegally conspired to "boycott JSW by refusing to supply it with specific, domestically produced steel slab" (JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 5th Cir. # 22-20149).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A State Department notice declaring that all agency efforts to control international trade now constitute a "foreign affairs function" of the U.S. under the Administrative Procedure Act will ultimately be subject to the discretion of the courts, trade lawyers told us.
Canada opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on March 5 to challenge the new U.S.-imposed 25% tariff on all non-energy goods and 10% tariff on energy goods from Canada, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "as well as the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement." Canada said that the U.S. measures "appear to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations" under GATT and TFA provisions.