President Donald Trump’s imposed August 1 deadline for concluding trade agreements is looming. In retaliation, at least eight counter-suits have emerged, mostly challenging his administration’s Section 301 tariffs. This legal pushback is the result of mounting concerns about the constitutionality of the use of national security statutes to impose these tariffs. Thousands of small businesses and several states have filed amicus briefs in support of standing up against these measures.
While the Trump administration has reached preliminary frameworks for trade deals with several countries, including Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom, the agreement with Canada remains elusive. Canadian officials have worked quietly and publicly to lower expectations of a new economic and security agreement emerging before the deadline.
Tariffs Under Scrutiny
The lawsuits against Trump’s tariffs are focused on the administration’s interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Critics point out that the president’s unilateral approach to inducing tariffs is unconstitutional. They emphasize that the authority to set tariffs rests exclusively with Congress.
Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, has documented extensive reasons to be alarmed by this interpretation. He stated, “The Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to set tariffs and duties,” emphasizing that no previous president has ever relied on IEEPA for such purposes.
Additionally, as Skorup described, we’re seeing the administration take a vague statute and assert powers they’ve never had before. “We don’t want power consolidated into a single king or president,” he added, underscoring the dangers of executive overreach in matters of trade.
Ongoing Legal Battles
The legal landscape surrounding Trump’s tariffs is decidedly less cloudy. In addition to the eight lawsuits challenging the tariffs, two lawsuits have been filed in defense of the president’s actions. Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is taking an aggressive look at the administration’s use of IEEPA. This has not been without significant, widespread concern from legal experts.
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. He has made his thoughts known beyond the courtroom, including in pieces outlining the overall implications of these legal fights. “The law also says there must be an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat to American security or the economy,” he noted. He expressed hope that the courts would ultimately side with those challenging the tariffs, stating, “We are hopeful — we can’t know for sure obviously — we are hopeful that we will continue to prevail in court.”
Implications for International Relations
As Trump continues to assert pressure on Canada regarding trade negotiations, he has even threatened to impose tariffs as high as 35 percent if an agreement is not reached by the deadline. Canada has other non-zero tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, which further complicates its dire economic relationship with the U.S.
As tensions are still simmering from this past summer, government data indicates that an extremely small percentage of fentanyl is intercepted at the northern border. This begs the question of whether such punitive tariffs could ever be justified on security grounds.
The Trump administration has moved with surprising speed to defy lower court rulings on these tariffs. In particular, it had appealed a ruling on the so-called “Liberation Day” tariff waiver concerning fentanyl precursors.
Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary, emphasized a call for resolution: “Put an end to this,” she remarked, indicating a desire for a resolution to ongoing legal challenges.
