US states mount court challenge to Trump's tariffs

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

May 21, 2025 3:07 PM EDT Updated 2 hours ago


NEW YORK, May 21 (Reuters) - Twelve U.S. states asked a federal court on Wednesday to halt President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, arguing that he overstepped his authority by declaring a national emergency to impose across-the-board taxes on imports from nations that sell more to the U.S. than they buy. A three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade is hearing arguments in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic attorneys general of New York, Illinois, Oregon, and nine other states.

They say the Republican president has sought a "blank check" to regulate trade "at his whim." The states claim the president badly misinterpreted a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify the tariffs. That law is meant to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats to the U.S., they have said.

Brian Marshall, an attorney for the state of Oregon, told the judges that IEEPA requires presidential actions to be closely tied to a specific emergency. A president cannot use tariffs or other actions "only for leverage" under IEEPA, Marshall said. Trump has incorrectly claimed that "he can set tariffs of any amount, on any country, for any length of time, and no court can review it," Marshall said.

Trump has said the decades-long U.S. history of importing more than it exports is a national emergency that has harmed U.S. manufacturers. But the states argue the U.S. trade deficit is not an "emergency" and that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at all. The same three-judge panel heard arguments last week in a similar case brought by five small businesses, and it is expected to issue a decision in the coming weeks.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-states-mount-court-challenge-trumps-tariffs-2025-05-21/

---

REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143446294

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. These tariffs are clearly illegal

There is no national emergency that is world wide that justifies these tariffs. This lawsuit will be fun to watch

[Karasu]

2. Nor is there one to justify anything else this administration has done. It's ridiculous that a president can declare a

fucking "national emergency" without specifying the nature of the emergency.

Once they are legally forced to do so, the whole house of cards crumbles. We should be attacking the emergency declaration with everything we have. So much of their policy (and most all of the executive orders) hinges on it. Hell, we should have learned this from his first term when he declared a fucking emergency to build the damn wall. He's a one-trick pony.

[thesquanderer]

3. I wonder what took them so long! (n/t)

[BumRushDaShow]

4. They have to clearly show "harm" to themselves

"as states", or the judge will throw the case out. There have already been cases thrown out regarding various illegal crap that 45 has done due to lack of standing and/or an inability for the person or entity to definitively "show" how the actions negatively impact them (some of the judges are really sticklers on that).

[thesquanderer]

5. Ah. It is a flaw in our system that something that will clearly cause harm can't be adjudicated...

...until after the harm occurs. Instead we must allow the preventable injury to happen before we can do anything about it.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. That's basically what it boils down to.

It's just like what happened when TX first passed the law allowing "bounty hunters" to go after people providing assistance to others to cross state lines to get an abortion and people/organizations sued.

Their cases were thrown out with the judge indicating that "no one had used the law yet" so at that point in time, "no harm, no foul".

[Emile]

7. A provision in the proposed budget bill could limit the ability

of the courts to enforce their rulings against the government.