Legal action questions Trump's tariffs, arguing unlawful usurpation of power beyond constitutional limits.
HOST:
Last night, President Trump made another move in his trade war saga. He announced plans to impose 100% tariffs on movies produced outside the U.S. There wasn't any proper procedure like a vote from Congress or regulatory process - just a social media post from the top dog. A few businesses impacted by these constant tariff changes claim that the President has overstepped his legal bounds. Ilya Somin, a legal scholar teaming up with the Liberty Justice Center, is representing these businesses in court.
SOMIN: Our clients are five U.S. businesses severely hurt by the President's tariffs. They rely on imported goods, and these tariffs could potentially drive them out of business.
HOST: His clients include a winemaker and a clothing company. The President has utilized a specific set of laws to adjust tariff rates throughout this year, claiming an emergency as the excuse. What's wrong with that argument, starting with the idea of an emergency?
SOMIN: There are many problems with it. He's trying to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, but that act doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the powers granted to the President. It simply regulates international transactions. In law, the word "regulate" is usually distinct from "tax, tariff, or the like."
HOST: So, the word "tariff" isn't in there? It doesn't say something similar to impose taxes, increase duties, or something?
SOMIN: Correct. None of those are mentioned.
HOST: Alright. So that's one issue. What else is wrong with the President's argument?
SOMIN: The emergency requirement is another problem. An emergency is a sudden, unexpected crisis - not existing trade deficits that have been around for decades with multiple countries. They aren't sudden, unexpected, or a crisis. Furthermore, trade deficits aren't a problem in themselves. I might have a trade deficit with my supermarket, but it doesn't mean it's an emergency if they don't buy anything from me.
HOST: If traded deficits finally become intolerable, making them an emergency, what do you think about that argument?
SOMIN: There's no evidence to support that claim. If an argument can classify anything as an emergency, then practically anything can be an emergency.
HOST: Your main points are: no emergency by definition, tariffs weren't a tool allowed for in an emergency, and the lack of a clear statement of delegation from Congress. Anything else?
SOMIN: There's also the point that there's no extraordinary and unusual threat, which the law requires. Additionally, there's the major questions doctrine. The Supreme Court has stated that when the executive branch claims the power to decide major economic or social issues, they must show that Congress has clearly delegated that authority to them. Ambiguous phrases don't count - there must be a clear statement. And if the biggest trade war since the Great Depression doesn't count as a major question, then I'm unsure what does.
HOST: Here's an ironic aspect: could this Supreme Court ruling that has pinned back Democratic presidents in the past now hold back a Republican president?
SOMIN: The logic is the same, and possibly even more compelling because this is even more of a major question. It's evident that there's no clear statement of delegation here.
HOST: I'd like to mention one last aspect. Laws grant the President a lot of freedom in international affairs and national security matters. The idea is that we wouldn't want a president to be constrained when an emergency arises. Are you concerned that winning a case like this might fence in a president who may need this authority in the future?
SOMIN: The risk is minimal. It's more harmful for a president to impose tariffs without justification and cause economic damage than to limit their powers using IEEPA. If there's truly a need for more power, Congress can pass new laws providing clearer delegations.
- Ilya Somin, a legal scholar, is advocating for five U.S. businesses whose livelihoods are at risk due to the President's tariffs on imported goods.
- The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not include tariffs in the powers granted to the President, according to Somin.
- Somin argues that existing trade deficits cannot be considered an emergency, as they have been ongoing for decades with multiple countries.
- Somin points out that there is no extraordinary and unusual threat, and no clear statement of delegation from Congress in the matter of the President's tariff policy, as per the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine.
