The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump's Tariff Power Grab May not be Over
Yesterday's deals with Canada and Mexico stopped the trade war for now. But Trump may yet return to asserting sweeping authority to impose whatever tariffs he wants.

Yesterday, Trump postponed his plan to impose massive 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, as a result of deals in which the two countries largely promised to do things they were already doing, actions that are highly unlikely to curb the fentanyl crisis that Trump used as a pretext for his actions.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that the crisis is over. After all, Trump only postponed the tariffs by 30 days. He hasn't cancelled the plan to impose them entirely. What he does after the thirty day deadline expires remains to be seen. In addition, Trump's tariff ambitions may not be limited to Canada and Mexico. He also threatens to impose them on the European Union and others. Moreover, even just threatening tariffs only to pull back after extorting concessions on other issues, causes real harm, by disrupting the continuity and legal certainty on which trade relationships depend. A key purpose of free trade agreements - like the USMCA deal that Trump himself signed with Canada and Mexico in 2018, only to violate it now - is to establish certainty and forestall opportunistic imposition of trade restrictions.
Thus, we cannot rest easy about this issue. Importers and others should still plan to bring legal action against the imposition of these kinds of tariffs. And they would do well to use the major questions and nondelegation arguments I outlined here. As also noted in my earlier post, opponents should also do everything they can to oppose the tariffs politically, by highlighting the ways in which they will increase prices for Americans.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Tariff revenue was up during biden's administration.
Did Ilya complain then?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217526/revenues-from-customs-duty-and-forecast-in-the-us/
"Whatabout?"
SRG2 2 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Whatabout?"
SRG - That is a pretty weak defense of the left's attack on Trump's tariffs when bidens tariffs were higher.
Technically, is it a "power grab" if he already had the power to begin with? Congress has been pretty free with the delegation in this area.
He did have a good argument the other day that Congress overdelegated the power to set tariffs to the President.
Just as their are limits to the powers Congress can delegate to agencies there are limits in their delegations of power to the president.
There's no way for courts to adjudicate "overdelegation". That's like being a little bit pregnant. Either Congress can delegate here, or it can't. There is no standard for any court to apply that the delegation has gone too far. No equivalent to "excessive" jury verdicts. These are political questions.
No, that's not how the nondelegation doctrine goes.
That's neither an argument, nor an explanation. Coincidentally, just like Somin.
The way Trump is using them, with the delegation allowing him flexibility to negotiate with another country, would seem to be exactly why Congress would delegate this authority to the president.
Yet complaining about this is the closest Somin gets to articulating why it's a power grab, not at all explaining why that might be illegal or unconstitutional.
Odd seeing some of the people that object when the other side makes policy arguments against the constitutionality of something, make a policy argument why something is unconstitutional.
The nondelegation doctrine is the notion that Congress legislates and the executive branch administers, and therefore a law that in effect authorizes the executive to make laws is not permissible. Congress must provide an "intelligible principle" for the executive to apply, rather than just giving the executive a blank check to enact whatever policies it thinks is a good idea. Again the most famous example is Schechter Poultry, which struck down the NIRA because it authorized the president to enact any codes of "fair competition" it wanted in the economy. (Whether the nondelegation doctrine really exists since 1935, and whether there's an originalist justification for it, it in fact does assess whether there's overdelegation.)
I'd love to see the judiciary return to applying nondelegation doctrine. But it seems if anything deader than enumerated powers doctrine, and Somin knows that.
He'll occasionally lecture us on not confusing the law as it is with the way we think it ought to be. He really ought to take his own advice more seriously.
What "power grab"? Congress delegated away all their authority in this area decades ago.
I think they were wrong to do so but one can hardly call it a 'power grab' when the power has been explicitly handed to you.
You have to remember, it's Trump. "Power grab" sounds more evil than saying that he is just using the power that Congress gave to the Executive Branch.
In what law did Congress do that?
Just like with Section 3 disqualification debate, just because you take a side contrary to the common understanding, doesn't mean you can assume your own conclusions--in this case calling it a "power grab". Little different than pretending the Trump was obviously disqualified.
Sorry, the president was delegated this authority by Congress long ago. Personally I don't like that this was done, but I can't pretend (like you Somin) that it hasn't happened, because it's clearly legal. You talk the same ridiculous way about immigration laws, pretending restrictions are unconstitutional when they most certainly are not. It's obnoxious.
"Clearly!"
Yes, that is exactly what Somin has done here, again.
Yeah well, because I am cheering on the judiciary to bury Chevron deference and disallow regulatory blank checks like CFPB, I find some need to be consistent. If Congress and the Judiciary see fit to permanently cut back the imperial bureaucracy and Presidency, even if it starts out at the President's expense, then I think it will all be for the good.
But it better not be just Trump rules.
Reminder for any new readers here that Ilya is an Open Borders extremist who opposes any restrictions on immigration whatsoever. It follows that he would likewise oppose any actions taken to induce foreign countries to help stop the flow of illegal immigrants.
What's particularly stupid about this ad hominem is that, well, it's particularly stupid. Prof. Somin is a libertarian. He opposes tariffs because he opposes tariffs, not because of some weird theory about a second order bank shot about immigration, which the tariffs never had anything to do with in the first place.
That is not an ad hominem. Somin really is an open borders extremist, and that explains most of his posts. He is also an anti-American Marxist, not a libertarian.
Come on, he's not actually anti-American. He's the guy who got pulled into the lifeboat, and loves the lifeboat so much he wants to share it with EVERYBODY. So much he can't accept that he'd sink it.
We already covered that you're retarded in an earlier thread this week. You can stop now.
That is an ad hominem attack. One that you do a lot.
Many fine retards on both sides!
No; it's an insult. Like many on the Internet, you use phrases you don't understand. Ironically, your attacks on Prof. Somin are ad hominem arguments.
It's not an ad hominem because Somin's entire approach to blogging about immigration here is pretending his view of unrestricted immigration is required by the Constitution, pretending the history and case law to the contrary doesn't exist or is somehow disputed. Only disputed by him and a crank fringe.
I have no issue with him honestly advocating for his position. Much of it could be achieved if Congress changed/repealed immigration law. What he desires is not prohibited by the Constitution. It's when he engages in the charade that judges should somehow strike down immigration restrictions, because of his libertarian principles.
Its not like the border is actually 'free and open' in the common sense of the word. Its actually controlled along with who and what gets in and out by criminal gangs.
One would think that a man who claims to be so passionately committed to truly open borders and individual liberty wouldn't want some of the most vicious gangs in the world who regularly skin and burn people alive to remain in control of the border and the people passing through it and in some cases ,that would be exacerbated by the drug cartels he seems to be so in favor of, extending their control to reach over people in America. But I guess this is some rare breed of libertarianism I am unfamiliar with.
I mean he's an open borders advocate, which is a mainstream libertarian position. Free trade is kind of a central libertarian belief. It's shouldn't really shock anyone to see a libertarian advocating for libertarianism on a largely-libertarian blog hosted by a libertarian organization.
(Personally I think libertarianism is pretty extreme but free trade when possible is good.)
One of the peculiarities of the comments sections on VC and more so on the main Reason pages is that they'e full of comments from right-wing authoritarians who are pissed off that there are libertarian columnists advancing libertarian arguments on law, politics and economics, and getting responses from other posters at least occasionally sympathetic to libertarian arguments.
I don't know why they don't just fuck off and post on Newsmax or in some cases, the Daily Stormer.
I think in our current environment, continuing to make arguments based on wishful thinking about what the law should be can be particularly dangerous. It not only effectively concedes one doesn’t have a legitimate legal argument, like the boy who cried “wolf” it discredits one, lessening the possibility that one will be paid attention to when one has a legitimate legal argument.
Congress has chosen to make tarriffs a tool of foreign policy available to the President at discretion. This makes them subject to the political questions doctrine, which applies to foreign policy matters generally, and makes the President’s exercise of the discretion Congress has afforded him judicially unreviewable.
Congress can take away the President’s discretion on these matters, and courts can review whether the President is in fact statutorily authorized to use discretion or not. But they cannot apply constitutional doctrines like the non-delegation doctrine or the major questions doctrines to overturn a President’s exercise of discretion Congress has authorized. The remedy lies with elections.
No, it doesn't. That's not what the political questions doctrine says/is.
Yes it is and always has been. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918), the very first use of the political questions doctrine, said so.
“The conduct of our foreign relations is committed by the Constitution to the legislative and executive - the political - departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”
Once again: tariffs aren't foreign relations. They are taxes on Americans.
And, no, you misunderstand the doctrine. That case was not the first use of the doctrine, and in any case what's considered justiciable has changed drastically in the last century. (At one point apportionment was considered a political question, before Baker v. Carr.)
They are both.
I despise tariffs, period. But to claim they have no affect on foreign relations, or that Congress hasn't delegated them to the President, is asinine.
I did not say that they "have no [e]ffect on" foreign relations. Lots of things have an effect on foreign relations. What I am saying is that, contra ReaderY, that isn't the test for anything.
This makes sense to me, ReaderY, the way it is phrased. Were there further cases to clarify that doctrine? SCOTUS has used this doctrine in recent years to turn away cases, correct?
So who keels over first from a stroke or heart attack because of something Trump did? Sullum or Somin?
So many MAGA showing their ass these days.
Worth noting that one of the arguments that biden couldnt secure the border effectively was because congress wouldnt pass the border security bill.
Does it seems odd that the border is suddenly more secure, even though that border bill still hasnt passed congress.
That bill would have let in 5000 illegal aliens a day.
And didn't obligate Biden to do anything if it went over 5,000.
The bill wouldn't have let in a single person.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill
Easy answer: Trump himself.
Death by Big Mac.
On a more serious note, something is wrong with his eye.
The best analysis I've seen of what is really going on here is Timothy Noah's piece in The New Republic, entitled, "How Child Psychology Explains Trump's Wild Tariff Feints".
No paywall.
https://newrepublic.com/article/191091/trumps-tariff-reversal-child-psychology
The Supreme Court aided and abetted Trump's avoidance of criminal and constitutional (14A, sec. 3) legal limits. Republicans helped by not voting to convict him when they had a chance.
So, it is unsurprising he continues to not care about legal limits. The bowl of pottage that he received will tempt him to do more since his minions are already saying he "won."
I am not a big supporter of the MQD and don't think the non-delegation doctrine has much bite though the Supreme Court currently feels otherwise (more so the former). I agree with the OP regarding the misuse of tariffs on policy grounds.
There are also some legal limits as discussed in the former post. The delegation is not complete. There are limits and the grounds used by Trump are dubious. It would help if Congress tightened the rules given how recklessly he is acting.
But, Congress is run by his minions now, so we are left with the courts and political pressures including public opposition.
If anyone enjoys wasting their time and money on meritless litigation, have it at. But you may want to ask yourself: When has a court ever imposed limits on a President's statutory tariff authority?
When has a president ever imposed tariffs in such bad faith?
Impossible to answer. There was no functional equivalent to TDS back then.
That's an interesting theory, that refusal to convict a defendant is "aiding and abetting". I'm glad I don't live in a country where that's a valid legal argument.
Isn't that the same argument re: criminal immigrants? Failure to deport undocumented immigrants for non-violent criminal activity is "aiding and abetting" any violent crimes they commit later?
Ilya, I appreciate that you, like any good legal academic, want to see your argument up in the headlines, bringing victory to plaintiffs in friendly circuits.
But I think you should take a step back and consider the reality of litigating tariffs with the Trump administration. There were no successful challenges of his tariffs during his first term, and none were brought against tariffs that remained in place during Biden's term. The reason for this is that, for businesses impacted by the tariffs to the point where they'd be motivated to spend substantial resources on litigation, it will in most cases be easier to pursue one-off waivers from (bribe) the president.
And that's for tariffs that are in place long enough not to become moot by the time a lawsuit has been filed. The markets are already figuring out that these tariff threats are mostly bluster and bluffs; if Trump continues to engage in this three-day "trade wars," more companies will just knuckle down and wait for the latest tantrum to pass, for Trump to get his pacifier.
LOL!
"Power grab".
Doing stuff you get to do is a power grab if Somin doesn't like it.
Imagine our surprise.
Prof. Somin writes, "[O]pponents should also do everything they can to oppose the tariffs politically, by highlighting the ways in which they will increase prices for Americans."
If the Washington Post's columnists and commenters represent a fair sample of those opponents, they do—frequently and at considerable length.
Unfortunately, their willingness to acknowledge basic tax-incidence theory ends with tariffs. When they're beating the drum for increased corporate taxes, there's never a suggestion that the costs of such taxes might be passed along to the consumer, in the form of higher prices. In their economic model, the cost of a tariff falls entirely on the consumer; but when corporate taxes are increased, the money all comes out of the pockets of overpaid executives and fat-cat shareholders.