By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is challenging the Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, arguing that their imposition via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) constitutes an unconstitutional overreach of executive power. The lawsuit claims that the IEEPA, intended for swift responses to international economic crises, does not grant the president authority to unilaterally levy tariffs, a power reserved for Congress. The NCLA asserts that the tariffs are not only unauthorized but also lack a demonstrable connection to the declared national emergency, specifically citing the discrepancy between the stated opioid crisis and the broad-based tariff implementation. The group seeks a court order declaring the tariffs unlawful and halting their enforcement.
Read the original article here
Conservative groups are raising concerns that Trump’s tariffs represent an illegal overreach of executive power, encroaching on the legislative authority of Congress. The claim hinges on the argument that these tariffs weren’t levied in response to a genuine national emergency, as the only justification for the executive branch to impose them unilaterally. Instead, the justification for these tariffs seems to have shifted frequently, ranging from concerns about cartels and fentanyl to broader accusations of unfair trade practices. This lack of a consistent, clearly defined policy objective undermines the emergency claim and fuels the argument that the tariffs are simply being imposed at the President’s whim.
The absence of a declared emergency is crucial because the power to levy tariffs is traditionally the purview of Congress. The argument made is that only in the face of immediate, severe economic threats, like a sudden surge of unfairly priced foreign goods harming domestic producers, would granting emergency tariff-setting authority to the executive branch be acceptable. This is typically handled in parliamentary systems by specific ministries responsible for trade and economic matters.
Interestingly, the silence from some traditionally conservative groups throughout this process is now being questioned. The current objections to Trump’s actions seem to have surfaced only recently, raising questions about whether the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, and due process have suddenly become more relevant. This late emergence of concerns contrasts with the years of actions that have seemed to disregard these very principles.
Moreover, critics point to the alleged circumvention of a rule mandating a vote on tariffs within a specific timeframe. The claim is that the administration bypassed this requirement by essentially declaring that ordinary calendar days did not apply to these specific tariffs. This maneuver is seen as another instance of the executive branch deliberately side-stepping the normal legislative process. The complicity of the Republican-controlled Congress at the time is also highlighted as a key element contributing to this erosion of the separation of powers. Allowing the executive branch to set tariffs without proper legislative oversight not only undermines the intended balance of power, but sets a dangerous precedent that could drastically reshape the relationship between branches of government.
The argument from critics goes further, claiming that this situation presents an impeachable offense. This is fueled by the perception that the president acted on his own volition without proper legislative oversight or the justification of a declared emergency. While the specific definition and requirements for impeachment are complex, the alleged intentional disregard of congressional authority is being considered as a grave breach of constitutional norms.
The current situation has prompted calls for action. While legal challenges are likely, many feel that the courts may be an insufficient avenue for resolution. There are expressions of frustration with the seemingly limited power of Congress to check executive actions, especially considering their prior actions to allow the President wide berth. While legal challenges are underway, it is clear that the political implications of this clash between branches will continue to resonate. The broader concern goes beyond the legality of specific tariffs; it’s about the potential for long-term damage to the institutional checks and balances that underpin American governance. The belief that the executive branch can bypass the legislative process in such a blatant manner sets a concerning precedent that could be exploited in the future, potentially undermining the democratic process itself.