The August 1 deadline is rapidly approaching for countries to conclude their trade deals with the U.S. At the same time, at least eight other lawsuits are disputing the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. These ongoing legal battles come amidst the contentious national debates around his trade actions. They express special concern about his invocation of a national security statute to impose tariffs on a number of countries including Canada.
Trump thinks the deadline is key to forcing new trade frameworks into existence. Yet to date, very few settlements have been publicly disclosed. Canadian officials have expressed skepticism regarding the prospects of a comprehensive economic and security agreement materializing by the looming deadline. Worse yet, Trump has threatened to start back Canada with tariffs as high as 35 percent. He says this will be his drastic step unless a deal is made.
Lawsuits and Legal Support
The legal environment surrounding Trump’s tariffs is getting interesting if not murky. Eight lawsuits are now pending against these tariffs. On behalf of small businesses and states challenging the rules, 18 amicus briefs have been submitted. The focus of this criticism is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act correctly arms the president with the ability to impose tariffs only in specific circumstances.
Brent Skorup from the libertarian Cato Institute outlines other very serious problems with the administration’s IEEPA interpretation. He stated, “the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to set tariffs and duties.” He further emphasized, “We don’t want power consolidated into a single king or president,” pointing out that no previous president had utilized IEEPA in this manner for tariffs.
In the wake of these legal challenges, defenders of the Trump administration have initiated two of their own lawsuits. These actions underscore the contentious nature of this issue. As these cases make their way through the courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will play an important role. Now it will be up to them to find these tariffs illegal.
Canada’s Response and Trade Negotiations
The fate of the possible trade pact Canada is still up in the air as the clock ticks. Trump has sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening steep tariffs if an agreement is not reached by August 1. Canadian officials have repeatedly lowered expectations for a resolution, suggesting that a lot of heavy lifting is still left to accomplish.
Now, for example, Canada is suffering tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles as a result of these pernicious trade tensions. The latest flare-up has raised a number of questions about the economic ramifications for both countries. This is all happening as U.S. government data points to almost no fentanyl being seized at the northern border, one of the major justifications for implementing tariffs.
“We are hopeful — we can’t know for sure obviously — we are hopeful that we will continue to prevail in court.” – Ilya Somin
Legal scholar Ilya Somin made a case that, indeed, Trump can impose tariffs through IEEPA. He contends that this approach does not come with enough legal justification. He explained that “the law says there must be an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat to American security or the economy.” That leads to inquiries about whether the present situation comes close to that showing.
Implications of Tariffs and Legal Challenges
Beyond the ongoing legal challenges, these export restrictions illustrate the broader implications of Trump’s trade policies. The critics were right — giving the president unilateral powers to levy tariffs would invite abuse. Somin remarked that such powers “give the president the power to impose any tariff he wants, on any nation, for any reason, for as long as he wants, whenever he feels like it.”
After two recent court rulings, the Trump administration immediately sought leave to appeal a lower court’s ruling. This decision is relevant to the newly proposed “Liberation Day” for fentanyl tariffs. To address these appeals, no matter how they originated, could have long-standing repercussions on future administrations’ treatment of trade and tariff matters.
“Put an end to this.” – Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized the administration’s determination to continue pursuing its trade agenda in the face of legal challenges. As deadlines loom and negotiations continue, the administration remains focused on achieving its objectives while navigating a complex legal landscape.
