The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) challenged the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports on Wednesday. The NCLA argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) has never been used before to impose tariffs because that is not what the act authorizes. In using this law to impose tariffs, the president overstepped his constitutional authority.
The NCLA filed the complaint on behalf of Simplified, a lifestyle brand based in Pensacola, Florida, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The company, which sells planners, notebooks, and stationery has been harmed by the tariffs, which have increased the price of materials it imports from China.
The complaint alleges that Trump's executive orders raising tariffs on Chinese imports exceed the statutory authority of the IEEPA, and that a ruling upholding this assumed authority would violate the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from transferring to other branches of government "powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative." When Congress does delegate its power, it must provide an intelligible principle, i.e., "a legal framework to constrain the authority of the delegee." The suit argues that the IEEPA contains no such principle vis-à-vis tariffs, which are nowhere mentioned in the statute.
The NCLA also argues that the IEEPA only authorizes the president to apply asset freezes, trade embargoes, and sanctions in response to international emergencies. The IEEPA cannot be interpreted to grant the president the ability to modify the federal tariff schedule, says the suit. Congress alone has the constitutional authority "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," and the president may only impose tariffs as specifically granted by statute. When Congress authorizes the executive branch to make "decisions of vast 'economic and political significance'" it must do so clearly, per the major questions doctrine. The suit contends that increasing tariff rates on hundreds of billions of dollars of imported goods is of such significance.
The plaintiff does not dispute that the opioid crisis is an emergency—an argument that Trump has used to levy tariffs— but contends that there is "no connection between the opioid problem and the tariff [Trump] ordered."
Trump's other justification for the Chinese tariffs is found in the America First Trade Policy memo, which bemoans the "country's large and persistent annual trade deficits" with China. Trump himself described the China tariffs as "not a negotiating tool [but] pure[ly] economic." John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel for the NCLA, tells Reason, "The IEEPA says that sanctions can be invoked for the emergency and for no other reason." Vecchione explains that the Supreme Court ruled in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019) "that the courts are allowed to look behind the stated reason for an action [to determine] the actual reason for an action." Trump has stated his other reasons.
The suit describes how Trump legally imposed tariffs in his first administration: on steel and aluminum under the national security provision of the Trade Expansion Act; on solar cells and washing machines under the global safeguard provision of the Trade Act of 1974; and on Chinese imports under the unilateral trade sanctions provision of the Trade Act. Unlike the IEEPA, these two acts "expressly refer to duties or tariffs" and require the administration to make certain findings. The process required to impose these tariffs, including publication in the Federal Register followed by the regular notice-and-comment period, took 10, 11, and eight months, respectively. The latest tariff increase on Chinese goods takes effect exactly one month from the issuance of Trump's executive order.
The NCLA's lawsuit is the first of its kind. Vecchione says that "the chances of [the tariffs] being pulled are slim," but "if Congress came in and said all of this was unlawful…I believe both NCLA and my client would be very happy with that outcome."
The post Are Trump's Tariffs Constitutional? appeared first on Reason.com.
