when I think about the latest lawsuit against the Trump administration, and I’m not even surprised.
But can you blame me?
A conservative legal group, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), is suing the administration over tariffs on Chinese imports, claiming they were imposed through an “unlawful” use of emergency executive power – what a shocking revelation.
And, of course, this 29-page complaint filed by the NCLA in the Northern District of Florida is just the tip of the iceberg.
But let’s melt the iceberg and dive into the details, shall we?
The NCLA asserts that the authority to impose tariffs lies with Congress, not the president – .
According to the nonprofit group, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) grants the executive sweeping authority to quickly combat international economic crises, but – and this is a big but – it does not allow the president to usurp the legislative branch’s control of the country’s purse strings through the unilateral imposition of tariffs.
But, let’s be real, who needs Constitutional limits when you have executive power?
And, as the NCLA so eloquently puts it, “Congress passed the IEEPA to counter external emergencies, not to grant presidents a blank check to write domestic economic policy.”
The right-leaning legal group is seeking a court order declaring that Trump’s tariffs are an “unconstitutional exercise of legislative power” and enjoining them from being implemented and enforced – good luck with that.
But, in all seriousness, the complaint alleges that Trump is the first president to use the emergency statute as a means of imposing tariffs, which is “not surprising” because “the statute does not even mention tariffs, nor does it say anything else suggesting it authorizes presidents to tax American citizens” – basic reading comprehension, people.
As I brush up on my Constitutional knowledge, I am reminded that “a tariff is a tax on Americans’ commerce with other countries” and that “the Constitution assigns Congress exclusive power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce” – who knew?.
And, let’s not forget, presidents can impose tariffs only when Congress grants permission, which it has done in carefully drawn trade statutes – ceremoniously, of course.
The suit argues that even looking at the statute in a light most favorable to Trump, his administration’s tariffs still run contra to the law because the IEEPA limits presidential actions to those “necessary” in addressing a specific emergency – necessity is the mother of invention, after all.
But, in this case, the president declared an emergency over Chinese opioids being brought into the country, and his China Executive Orders show no connection between the opioid problem and the tariff he ordered – cause and effect, anyone?
And, as the NCLA so aptly puts it, “The means of an across-the-board tariff does not fit the end of stopping an influx of opioids, and is in no sense ‘necessary’ to that stated purpose” – logic prevails.
But, of course, Trump’s own words have further undermined his use of the emergency power, noting that he implemented the tariffs with the goal of reducing America’s trade deficit and increasing federal revenue – the plot thickens.
And, let’s not forget, Trump cited the same emergency statute when he unveiled another executive order that raised the percentage Americans will pay on imported Chinese products to 54% – inflation, anyone?.
As I delve deeper into the world of Constitutional power, I am reminded that “The Constitutional power ‘to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises’ and ‘to regulate commerce with foreign Nations’ belongs to Congress” – basic civics.
But, as NCLA senior litigation counsel John Vecchione so eloquently puts it, “The Administration’s actions followed none of these constitutional commands, and the statute it