"Challenging the Tax Hike": A Dozen States Take on Trump Over His Crazy Trade Policies
- Bye bye
Disproportionate tariff strategy: Twelve American states file lawsuit against administration over Trump's trade policies - "12 U.S. states file lawsuit against federal government over Trump's customs policy, deeming it insane"
It's beyond ridiculous, reckless, and straight-up illegal according to Arizona's Attorney General, Kris Mayes. She's talking about the tariffs the freakin' White House insists we're vinyl rollin' with, homie. Here's the lowdown.
Trump implemented these tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. But here's the tea. The dozen states who've joined the legal fray claim the prez ain't got the legal green light for increased tariffs under this law. The White House's trade policies have turned the constitutional applecart upside down and left the American economy scrapping for its dignity.
Similar arguments have been voiced by California, the state that's All That Jazz. California's Governor, Gavin Newsom, labeled Trump's trade policies as a self-destructive own goal, the absolute worst in the country's history.
In the beginning of April, Trump announced a minimum tariff rate of 10% for all trading partners. But trust us, it didn't end there. Irons in Pyongyang's fire, Trump initially proposed even juicier surcharges for nearly 60 countries, setting the EU ablaze with a 20% hike. But he had a change of heart a week later when he hit pause for 90 days. The 10% tariff rate stuck, however, and Trump's tariffs on China are still playing hot potato, sittin' pretty at 145%. Trump's trade war has caused some real stock market pyrotechnics.
- Donald Trump
- Trade Policies
- California
- Arizona
- Minnesota
- New York
- Oregon
- White House
The legal basis for this fight between the 12 US states, including Arizona and California, centers around four main arguments against Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA):
- Constitutional Overreach: The suit alleges that Trump violated the Constitution by using IEEPA to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The Constitution delegates authority for taxation and tariffs to Congress; however, this authority is typically delegated to the executive branch through specific trade laws[2][3].
- Misuse of IEEPA: Historically, the IEEPA has been utilized for imposing economic sanctions in response to national security emergencies, not for tariffs. No prez before Trump has used IEEPA to impose tariffs, and the law doesn't mention "tariffs" or "taxes" explicitly[2][3].
- Lack of Emergency: The states argue that there is no genuine crisis or threat to national security to justify using emergency powers under IEEPA. Typically, emergency powers are invoked during a crisis[2][3].
- Economic Harm: The lawsuit also highlights the potential economic damage caused by these tariffs, including inflation and job losses, which could take a toll on American folks[3].
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, where similar disputes have been raised. Although the Court of International Trade recently sided with the Trump administration on a related matter, broader legal challenges to these tariffs are still underway. In fact, these challenges may find themselves front and center on the steps of the Supreme Court[1][3].
- Arizona's Attorney General, Kris Mayes, has joined forces with other state attorneys general from California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and possibly more, in a legal challenge against President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to implement tariffs.
- The states argue that Donald Trump's trade policies, particularly his use of emergency powers under the IEEPA, constitute constitutional overreach, misuse of the Act, lack of a genuine emergency, and may cause significant economic harm to American citizens.
- The White House's trade policies, as announced by President Trump, have been criticized as reckless and self-destructive by Governors such as Gavin Newsom of California, who have likened them to own goals in the country's history.
- In response to these criticisms, Donald Trump has announced a series of tariffs, including a minimum rate of 10% for all trading partners, and proposed even higher surcharges for nearly 60 countries, such as the EU, although he later paused these increases for 90 days.
- These trade policies, as pursued by the White House, have raised concerns among many states and have resulted in legal challenges at the U.S. Court of International Trade, with potential implications for the Supreme Court.
