The constitution is rightly cited in a lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs

Why does Trump believe that he has power to do what he is doing? The answer is that the congress has shown a large part of its authority to regulate foreign trade to the President for almost a century. The abdication of responsibility by the congress made it possible for the president to use this power and to impose their own will on our global trading partners. And as we see with the tumbling stock marker, it can potentially bring catastrophic results to bring such decisions into the hands of a person. The founders did not intend to do that. Those who designed our constitution imagined a government of really common power, between three twigs corresponding to each other, two of them politically. Unfortunately, the legislative branch was limped to the question of the impression of tariffs in favor of the executive.

In 1934, the Congress delegated a large part of its authority in the middle of the global economic crisis when the law on mutual trade agreements gave and the president gave the authority to negotiate trade agreements and to make certain changes to US tariff rates without the approval of the congress. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of our country, was the first to unilaterally change the tariff.

Three decades later, in 1962, the Congress passed the trade law law that gives the President the authority to change the tariffs based on an investigation and determination of the Ministry of Commerce that some imports represent a national security threat. During his first administration, Trump used this power much more liberal than its predecessors, and he imposed duties on steel and aluminum twice according to section 232 of this law. It is based on the same section of this law during this term in order to resume the tariffs for steel and aluminum, which it is necessary for the preservation of national security.

Twelve years after the Trade Experience Act, the congress made even more power over foreign trade to the executive. In Section 301 of the 1974 Commercial Act, the US trade representative, a member of the cabinet, is imposed on the authorization to impose trading sanctions on abroad if they break trade agreements or damage the US trade by taking measures that are “unjustified” or “unreasonable”. In fact, the Trump government quoted section 301 when it imposed “mutual tariffs” this week. Trump has argued that China has concluded one or more trade agreements and thus offers a way to impose sanctions (AKA tariffs) against goods imported from there.

Emily Ley Paper, the Florida company, which the Trump administration sued on Thursday, argued that the government was trying to “avoid” these trade laws illegally. The lawsuit focuses on another statute, the IEPA mentioned above, in which it is argued that the president does not provide the president’s authority to collect tax. In fact, the lawsuit points out that no president has ever used this law to impose tariffs. The plaintiffs argue that even if the IEEPA provides the president of the authorization to collect tariffs, only is the case if there is a national emergency that trading cables can alleviate.

Trump says his tariffs are a reaction to the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs to the United States. However, the plaintiffs claim that there is no real connection between the tariffs in China and the opioid crisis.

While there may be a tendency to believe that the Conservative Supreme Court of the United States could bless the broad claim of the Executive Authority of the Trump government, the type of contestation that we are presented in the lawsuit on Thursday could get new responsibility with the court.

First, there is the basic argument that the congress simply gave the president too much authority. The constitution gave the authority to impose tariffs to the Congress. Although the congress passed this power to another area of ​​the government 150 years later, it may not have the authority to do so. Under the so -called non -delegation theory, the congress cannot simply throw up its hands and delegate its constitutionally prescribed obligations to the executive. While it is true that the Supreme Court unanimously decided in 1976 that part of § 232 to the Commercial extension Act was not an unconstitutional delegation of power from the Congress to the president, this Supreme Court differed from the one we now have. The Conservative Court of Chief Justice John Roberts may be willing to visit this case again or at least put a more robust view of the non -delegation doctrine.

A second argument is that the congress has violated the “main questions -doctrine” under which the congress must present a clear approval before an executive agency can decide a problem of national importance.

Although the history of our courts indicates that the judges generally be postponed to the president’s decisions in this area, a recent on site has given a third reason to ask themselves whether Trump’s power is checked in this case. In June 2024, Roberts wrote the statement that the doctrine of “Chevron Aresient” opened, and came to the conclusion that courts have an independent judgment and should not postpone the interpretation of a congress law by the executive if it is ambiguous. This would enable the courts to carry out a more searcher review of the measures that Trump enables according to the congress laws, which authorize it to collect tariffs under certain circumstances.

A federal judge or the Supreme Court can pump the breaks on Trump’s tariffs. The best solution to this problem that destroys the Americans’ investment accounts is not to rely on the judiciary. Instead, it is for the congress to reaffirm its constitutional authority and to push back the authority that they should never have given the White House (and may not be admitted under constitutional law).