Judges Halt Emergency Order in Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Tariffs

A group of well-respected figures, including former U.S. Senators and retired judges, are stepping up to challenge President Donald Trump’s tariffs. They’re saying the president doesn’t have the authority to impose these import duties, and they want to file a brief in an ongoing lawsuit. This group argues that only Congress has the power to tax, stating, “The powers to tax, to regulate commerce, and to shape the nation’s economic course must remain with Congress.”

The lawsuit, which was filed by five business owners with help from the nonprofit Liberty Justice Center, claims that Trump is overstepping his bounds under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One of these business owners, David Levi, who runs MicroKits LLC, is particularly worried. He fears that tariffs will make it impossible for his small business to compete, as he believes cheaper, copycat products from China will flood the market.

Levi, who started his company after losing his job in 2020, says he might run out of inventory soon due to these tariffs. He sees a future where he might have to increase prices, which could lead to a significant loss of revenue. In his view, this could spell trouble for his business, making it hard to compete with Chinese manufacturers.

The brief from the group challenging Trump mentions that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act was actually designed to limit presidential power. They argue, “IEEPA, the central statute invoked, cannot bear this weight,” emphasizing that it was meant for genuine emergencies, not to change the economy’s course. The group stresses that Congress never intended this act to be used as a workaround for permanent tax policies.

Article I of the Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” A tariff, at its core, is a tax on imported goods. Despite this, Liberty Justice Center’s recent motion to stop the tariffs was denied by the Court of International Trade, which set a hearing for May 13.

The Department of Justice has been urging the court to reject the temporary restraining order (TRO) against the tariffs. They argue that the plaintiffs haven’t shown sufficient evidence or a likelihood of succeeding in their case. According to government attorneys, “They provide no evidence that they have paid tariffs pursuant to the Executive Orders they seek to challenge.”

President Trump, on April 2, announced what he called reciprocal tariffs, dubbing it “Liberation Day” for U.S. trade. A week later, he paused these higher tariffs for 90 days to negotiate trade deals with over 75 nations, but maintained a 10% baseline tariff and 145% tariffs on imports from China. The courts sided with Trump on the TRO, noting that business owners hadn’t shown that they would face immediate harm.

Federal government attorneys have maintained that Congress lawfully gave the President the power to regulate imports through tariffs under specific situations. They argue, “Plaintiffs’ challenge to the president’s declaration of a national emergency also fails.” The administration believes the President’s declaration of an emergency is a decision that cannot be judged by the courts.

Trump has consistently promised that these tariffs will make the U.S. wealthier, bring manufacturing jobs back from low-wage countries, and lessen the tax burden on American families. A tariff, being a tax on imports, is typically paid by the importer, who can either absorb the cost or pass it on to consumers. Critics, however, warn that these tariffs could harm the economy, strain international trade relationships, and lead to higher prices for American consumers.

Despite criticism, Trump and his supporters argue that any economic discomfort from the tariffs will be temporary. They believe that the long-term benefits will include a resurgence in domestic manufacturing and increased federal revenue. This ongoing debate highlights the tension between presidential authority and congressional power, as well as differing views on how best to manage the nation’s economy and trade policies.