One potential avenue is a legal challenge against the Trump administration’s tariff actions, which critics say are already illegal. The lawsuit, filed last month at the Court of International Trade in New York, claims that only Congress possesses the authority to impose tariffs. This argument raises deeper constitutional concerns. It tests the bounds of separation of powers and takes a deep dive into the executive branch’s historic role in trade policy.
The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration overstepped its legal authority in imposing tariffs without Congressional approval. In particular, they claim that Congress alone has this authority per the Constitution. Our Constitution explicitly allows legislators to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This suit is an important check on executive power in trade matters. To do that, it hopes to highlight how much authority has been given to the presidency.
In their opening brief, the plaintiffs provide detailed testimony and evidence as to how the administration’s tariff actions have harmed key sectors of the economy. They claim that such tariffs undermine international trade norms. Further, they place unacceptable burdens on American businesses and consumers and were adopted without legislative accountability. The lawsuit asks for a judicial review of these illegal actions to hold them accountable to constitutional provisions.
Under fire from members of both political parties, the Trump administration has stood by its tariff policies as critical steps to protect American industries and correct harmful trade practices. That’s exactly what this lawsuit argues is the illegal basis of such claims, that economic conditions can’t justify going around Congress. The trade policy and executive power implications of this case’s outcome would be sweeping.
That important legal battle is currently taking place. It illustrates the pressures that are shaping today’s domestic fight over trade practices and the separation of powers between branches of government. Constitutional scholars, trade experts, and many others are closely watching the proceedings. Their observations, no doubt informed by strong outside interest, will change the future use of tariffs through new precedents.