Numerous tariff lawsuits have now been filed against the Trump administration’s numerous tariffs actions. Most interesting, they have been filed by smaller firms, conservative groups and a broad range of other groups (including states and governors). Bigger firms have not done so yet. Nor has the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Not sure why.

       These suits now seem to be the best bet in having the Trump tariffs declared unconstitutional. Trump administration recently argued (in the Court of International Trade) that courts cannot review the legality of presidential tariffs. However, a federal district court just denied Trump’s use of emergency presidential foreign affairs power under the 1798 Aliens Enemy Act, as to deportations.  Reigning in his excessive and related executive actions concerning foreign affairs (relying on old legislation) — which is much broader than his delegated tariff authority.

     My guess, the tariff litigation will succeed. It should be noted that the Senate recently failed by a tied vote (two anti-tariff senators were absent) in repealing various Trump tariffs. This was just a start of congressional action to repeal Trump’s tariffs. Of course, the Congress may yet still be able to reclaim its exclusive authority over trade (that it has delegated away since the 1930’s). My guess is, sooner than later.

………………………………………………….

“There is a growing roster of opponents now legally challenging Trump’s ability to issue some of the tariffs in the first place.  Trump is facing a barrage of lawsuits from state officials, small businesses and even once-allied political groups, all contending that the president cannot sidestep Congress and tax virtually any import …. None of the lawsuits filed this month are supported by major business lobbying groups, even though many organizations — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable — have been sharply critical of the president’s tariff…. Instead, the battle has been left to a scattered yet growing roster of litigants …. Last week, a dozen Democratic attorneys general from states including Colorado, New York and Oregon also asked a federal judge to block many of Trump’s tariffs …. At the heart of the legal wrangling is a 1970s law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which enables the president to order trade embargoes, set sanctions and limit foreign investment …. Trump invoked that law to impose his initial duties on Chinese exports, in what he described as an effort to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. He also used those powers to establish a 10 percent tax on exports from nearly every other country and to justify what he calls “reciprocal” tariffs. For evidence of an emergency, Trump primarily pointed to the trade deficit — the difference between what the United States exports to other nations and what it imports …. The latest lawsuit arrived Thursday from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a group with reported ties to the conservative donor Charles Koch. On behalf of a clothing company, a board game designer and other small businesses, the group faulted Trump for imposing an “unlawful and unconstitutional” 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods …. Another legal group with ties to Mr. Koch and the conservative financier Leonard A. Leo sued early this month on behalf of a Florida company facing high costs from the president’s tariffs on China. Leo is a co-chairman of the Federalist Society, which has advised Mr. Trump on judicial appointments. The organization behind the lawsuit, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, does not disclose its full range of donors …. In a separate lawsuit, two members of one of the largest tribes in the United States claimed that Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Canada violated treaty rights …. Without the economic emergency law, the president could have been forced to use much slower and narrower paths to tariffs, as he did with sector-specific levies including those on the auto industry …. In enacting the economic emergency law in 1977, Congress sought to curtail presidential powers after past commanders in chief had overused emergency declarations. Nixon had even tapped a precursor trade statute to impose his own 10 percent duty on imports, which similarly drew a court challenge, though the president prevailed …. The Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit with past ties to Richard Uihlein, an Illinois industrialist and a Republican megadonor this month, the group sued the Trump administration on behalf of small businesses that say the recent tariffs have harmed them. That included Victor Schwartz, the founder of VOS Selections, a New York City company that imports specialty wine, spirits and sake.” “Businesses and States Sues Trump Tariffs Over Use of Emergency Power.” New York Times (April 28, 2025).

“U.S. President Donald Trump is accused of having started a global trade war. That’s wrong. The U.S. Congress is responsible for it, and only the U.S. Congress can stop it. If the core institution of American democracy cannot reassert its clear constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy, then the chaos of the past two months will continue for the next four years …. But trade also represents the best opportunity for Congress to find its voice …. But on trade, the divisions are less clear …. The erosion of Congress’s sovereignty over trade has been decades in the making …. The abdication of power by Congress has three chapters. Each one did a little more to erode congressional authority for what seemed perfectly sound reasons at the time. But in total, they have left Congress neutered as Trump creates growing chaos in the global trading system …. Until April 2 of this year, Congress’s passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 was the most infamous day in U.S. trade history …. As the Depression ground on, Congress began to look for a way out of the mess it had made. The result was the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934—no, Trump did not invent the concept of “reciprocity”—which for the first time handed significant congressional tariff authority to the president. The bill authorized presidents to cut U.S. tariffs as long as other countries agreed to do the same …. The 1934 act launched the era of modern free trade negotiations …. The 1934 Reciprocal Tariff Act was the first great abdication of congressional trade authority, but the goal was to expand trade, not restrict it …. starting in the late 1960s and 1970s, however, as U.S. imports from Japan and Germany began to rise and the trade deficit widened, Congress gave the president brand-new powers to fight back with tariffs. Section 301, a provision of the Trade Act of 1974, as well as subsequent trade bills, gave the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) authority to threaten tariffs against countries with “unjustifiable” and “unreasonable” trade practices deemed harmful to U.S. economic interests …. The biggest loophole exploited by Trump in his frenzy of new tariffs is the variety of emergency powers granted to the president by Congress over many decades. Some were intended to be used for tariffs, but in much narrower ways than the administration has acted; others stretch existing emergency powers beyond recognition and may be struck down by the courts. The Trump administration has used two core statutes—Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—in unprecedented ways …. Barring a temporary injunction, the court cases will likely take many months or more to resolve, leaving the Trump administration unfettered in its use of tariffs. That leaves Congress as the only branch of the U.S. government with the ability to stop Trump before massive damage is done to the U.S. and global economies.” “Trump’s Tariff War and Congress.” Foreign Policy (April 2025).

“National security is clearly not a genuine concern here. There is no “emergency” or “predatory incursion” by a foreign government at the border; protesting or writing op-eds does not turn students into terrorists …. The administration hopes that its actions will not be subject to judicial review because they supposedly involve the president’s core constitutional powers. Judges have begun to reject the executive’s claims ….  History has not looked kindly on the Supreme Court’s upholding of the internment of Japanese Americans as a constitutional exercise of executive national security power, even during wartime.” “Fake Emergencies.”  Washington Post (April 29, 2025).

” A bid to reject President Trump’s worldwide “Liberation Day” tariffs fell short in the Senate as most Republicans stayed aligned with the White House.  The measure championed by Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) failed to win a majority, with 49 in favor and 49 against, hurt by the absences of two tariff opponents—Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), who was returning from an event in South Korea, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) …. The resolution sought to repeal America’s broad 10% tariffs on almost every nation and the higher tariffs on China and other “bad actors” by terminating the emergency declaration Trump used to impose the levies. The administration has argued that persistent trade deficits constitute an emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.” “Senate and Trump’s Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (May 1, 2025).

The Trump administration argued in the Court of International Trade that it has no jurisdiction to review the legality of presidential tariffs. “Trump Tells CIT Can’t Review Tariffs.” Bloomberg (May 1, 2025).

“A federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, to deport Venezuelans it has deemed to be criminals saying that the White House’s use of the statute was illegal …. The court found that the “plain ordinary meaning” of the act’s language, like “invasion” and “predatory incursion,” referred to an attack by “military forces” and did not line up with Trump’s claims about the activities of Tren de Aragua …. While the A.C.L.U. has largely been successful in stopping the Trump administration from continuing to deport people under the act.” “Federal Court Rejects Presidential Use of  Wartime Legislation (1798 Alien Enemies Act) – No Invasion.” New York Times (May 2, 2025).