The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Looking for Plaintiffs to Challenge Trump's IEEPA Tariffs in Court
The Liberty Justice Center and I are looking for appropriate plaintiffs to bring this type of case. LJC (a prominent public interest law firm) can represent them pro bono.

I have previously written about how Trump's abusive use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to start a massive trade war can be challenged under the major questions and nondelegation doctrines. See also this analysis by Georgetown law Prof. Jennifer Hillman.
The Liberty Justice Center, a prominent public interest law firm with extensive experience litigating economic liberties issues, is looking for an appropriate plaintiff (or group of plaintiffs) to file this kind of case. They can provide representation pro bono, for the right type of client. LJC has litigated and won many important cases related to economic freedom, most notably Janus v. AFSCME (2018), a major Supreme Court decision vindicating the rights of public employees to be free of mandatory union dues. I myself will assist LJC, as may be needed - also on a pro bono basis.
LJC Senior Counsel Jeffrey Schwab has authorized me to post this description of the types of plaintiffs they are looking for:
I think the ideal client would be a privately-held company affected by the tariffs that imports materials directly from one of the countries subject to the tariffs imposed by Trump under the IEEPA. The company doesn't have be considered a small business, but since I suspect many small businesses will be disproportionately harmed by the tariffs, that may be an ideal plaintiff. We may also be able to represent a business that imports goods through a third party like a wholesaler. But a business that directly imports goods would be ideal because it would make it easier to get standing. We would also not be opposed to representing more than one plaintiff, but I think the max would be 4 or 5.
Trump has imposed IEEPA tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and tariffs on many more countries are likely imminent. If you are a business owner or representative of one who fits the description above and wishes to pursue this issue, please contact Jeffrey Schwab, or myself.
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
Without commenting on the merits of such a suit—this seems like a very unlikely way to identify a viable plaintiff.
FWIW, I think think of several small businesses off the top of my head that import from Canada and Mexico.
However none of them would volunteer for this kind of scrutiny.
So, maybe, maybe not.
Oh, obviously there are tons of businesses that could serve this function. I just don’t think there a lot owned by people who are very likely to 1. Read this and. 2. Think, “sign me up!”
The guy hates Trump so much that he cannot help himself.
What are the ethical guidelines regarding client-shopping pro-bono?
They expect a kickback from the attorney's fees to be awarded.
"Well....sure I'll bring a case to you. But I expect 50% of the awarded attorney's fees to be sent back to me"
Wait, what?
Fees awarded when the case is pro bono?
The courts have lost their mind!
Oh sure. They can award fees in pro bono cases.
That, of course, would be unethical and/or illegal.
Precisely what law prevents this?
No response David?
What law prevents a lawyer from paying his client? What ethical guideline (referenced properly) prevents a lawyer from paying his client?
In these days, where so often the "real money" in these cases are the lawyers fees....shouldn't the client be able to get some of that "real money"?
Crazy Dave’s silly overreaction and his endless comments parroting the latest leftist talking points opposing the President is more than sufficient evidence that this tariff policy is the right way to go to benefit the country in the long run. Anything that gets them this agitated must, by definition, be good.
Lawyers cannot split fees with non-lawyers.
The Supreme Court upheld the practice in NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).
I'd expect such plaintiffs to get a very thorough proctological exam from the IRS.
Unlikely to happen
The IRS conducts very very few audits. During the 1980s & 1990's I was handling 5-10 audits a year. Starting around the year 2000, I am handling 1 , maybe 2 audits every five years. The last two audits I handled were in 2013 and 2023.
The point is that Trump is very explicitly weaponizing the DOJ. It's naive to think he won't do the same with the IRS.
I’ll do it. I have a thriving import-export business that works with several penguin colonies on the Heard and McDonald Islands. The 10% reciprocal tariff will severely impact my livelihood.
We need to go after Antarctica.
Trump responds to preexisting tariffs with a reciprocal tariff thats half of it.
Ilya: Drumpf started a trade war!
lol.
Um, guess again. Trump literally invented random numbers for other countries, claimed they were tariffs when they weren't, and then imposed "reciprocal" tariffs. Apparently he looked not at actual tariffs, but at bilateral trade deficits. Which is economic gibberish.
Some people like to pretend vats and similar schemes magically can't be discriminatory between nations even though they obviously can due to the balance of trade across different product categories. You guys apparently hate trump so much you're willing to side with foreign powers against US consumers by peddling these laughable lies that nothing can be a tariff or trade barrier unless it's officially called one by the non US levying party.
I side with US consumers by opposing all tariffs.
<≤<<
he looked not at actual tariffs, but at bilateral trade deficits. Which is economic gibberish.
<<<<
Ok, if he just looked at a single unrelated deficit number and took nothing else into account and called it a day you might have a point. I suppose you have a source for that?
https://x.com/AlanMCole/status/1907595748583121372
President Trump is good at one thing: explaining "arbitrary and capricious" to laypersons.
This post is apparently the first guy to figure out the simplistic, non-tariff origin of Trump’s numbers:
https://x.com/jamessurowiecki/status/1907559189234196942
Well, he figured out how the numbers were calculated — though note that later in that twitter thread he points out that it's even more insane because it's not even the trade deficit, but the trade deficit ignoring services, that's being used.
But this guy figured out the actual origin: https://bsky.app/profile/errantv.bsky.social/post/3lluor4agzk24
Yes, they asked ChatGPT to come up with a formula.
And here’s the gov’t’s mathematical gibberish to wow the rubes - it says the same thing, with obfuscating language and “fancy” math symbols.
In other words, it confirms that the formula is essentially based on the U.S. trade deficit with a foreign country, divided by the country’s exports. Which, to repeat for the suckers out there, is emphatically not the same thing as a “tariff”.
https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations
Nor, it should be noted in response to Trump's rhetoric, is it a measure of how much the other country is "cheating" us.
Did you catch this: "To conceptualize reciprocal tariffs, the tariff rates that would drive bilateral trade deficits to zero were computed. While models of international trade generally assume that trade will balance itself over time, the United States has run persistent current account deficits for five decades, indicating that the core premise of most trade models is incorrect."
There is literally no trade model in the history of ever that said that bilateral trade deficits would balance over time.
Here’s one explainer:
https://lessdumbinvesting.com/2025/04/02/where-on-earth-did-trump-get-his-tariff-data-from/
Oh Amos, you fell for it again!
Pointing out his credulity is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Is this an appropriate forum for soliciting a plaintiff for litigation against ... well, anybody?
I’ve hardly been shy to say that Trump has exceeded his authority, but he just hasn’t here. I think the odds of the Supreme Court sanctioning federal courts inhecting themselves into tariff questions are close to nil. If Congress doesn’t want the President to set tariffs, it can take the power back and set them itself.
(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.
At some point the courts have to step in and say that the President can't just make up emergencies to seize powers not otherwise given.
There are several other statutes that give the President authority to impose tariffs. For example, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 lets the President impose tariffs on countries that have a large trade surplus with the United States or that discriminate against the United States in certain ways. Given the totality of the statutes granting authority, I suspect that Mr. Trump’s lawyers wouldn’t have a problem finding a provision that they can get through the courts with no problem.
I think it’s a real problem that the President has all this authority. But he does.
Amazingly, the Senate just voted to rescind the state of emergency with regard to Canada. News media are treating the story as a breaking point for the Rs, with 4 switching to vote with the Ds. They are playing the story as the end of the Canadian piece in Trump's trade war plan. The Rs who switched were McConnell, Murkowski, Collins, and Paul.
Curious to see what the story looks like after the dust settles. This may signal welcome relief, however incomplete.
The House can simply ignore it - they decided NEA fast-tracking does not apply to them. It is also possible that some Member will invoke Rule IX 2(a)(1).
This is solicitation at its finest. There is no current dispute but let the lawyers make one. If this isn't unethical and sanctionable, it should be.
As I noted above, take it up with SCOTUS: NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).
A results-oriented opinion which has little in common with the solicitation in the article:
"It is enough that a vague and broad statute lends itself to selective enforcement against unpopular causes. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the militant Negro civil rights movement has engendered the intense resentment and opposition of the politically dominant white community of Virginia; litigation assisted by the NAACP has been bitterly fought. In such circumstances, a statute broadly curtailing group activity leading to litigation may easily become a weapon of oppression, however evenhanded its terms appear. Its mere existence could well freeze out of existence all such activity on behalf of the civil rights of Negro citizens."
There is no suggestion of such widespread bias here that should discard the normal rules which are kicked aside for civil rights cases. This is garden variety solicitation. Again, or at least it should be considered as such.
If this isn't unethical and sanctionable, it should be.
Didn't you take legal ethics? Shouldn't you know the answer to this?
Does anyone still doubt that Ilya deeply hates America after reading this post?
Yes, I doubt that. I find it more plausible that you hate people whose commitment to principles you abandoned can only be explained as hatred for America.
The only people Ilya agitates on behalf of are non-Americans. My country rescued his family from a communist hellhole and he's turned around and committed his life to carving it up, pro bono.
He's opposing a tax on Americans, pro bono.
Does Ilya grasp that he has so little objectivity and is such an ideologue that a reader can recognize which articles he wrote just by reading the headlines? What an indictment of his perspective!
are we talking about importing raw materials, or manufactured goods?
I saw an interesting post on reddit recently, claiming that the huge increase in Chinese Tarrifs was going to have major impacts on US-based boardgame kickstarters who had their stuff printed in China. Allegedly, if you pre-sold copies of your board game to an US resident for $100, and have been scheduling a big print-buy from China for the last six months, the new tariff increase meant that you were now out 30 extra dollars or so just to fulfill the terms of your original contract...
Somebody's missing a major messaging win. Opponents of Trump's 19th century tariff mercantilism should talk, not about Tariffs, but Import Taxes. That's a fair and simple description of a tariff: A tax on imports.
Thus, the easy-to-understand message Is that Americans are now paying Federal Income Taxes and FICA Taxes (Medicare/Social Security) on earned income. With the new Trump Federal Import Tax, we'll be paying a third federal tax, and it is the largest single tax increase every levied by a president.
So:
1. Federal Income Tax
2. Federal FICA Tax
3. Federal Import Tax
Do y'all really want to start paying a new federal tax?
The largest tax increase in American history. Imposed unilaterally by one guy, who has no constitutional authority to raise taxes.
When he crashes the economy, domestic and global, is there any doubt he's going to blame it on Biden? Or Obama? Or Hillary? Maybe Nancy Pelosi's gay husband?
The Deep State, globalists, the fake and failing news media, trans people…
We've "paid" tariffs before Trump. They never fully went away.
You can also include Federal excise (sales) taxes for a 4th category.
And federal corporate income tax for a 5th.
Are you suggesting that Oceana used to be the unwavering ally of Eurasia and the bitter opponent of Eastasia? Of course not! Oceana was ALWAYS the unwavering ally of Eastasia and the bitter opponent of Eurasia. Those who say otherwise are Goldstonian traitors.
Exactly like Oceana’s IngSoc party, it is not in any way the role or goal of the current US Republican Party to stand for or represent or care about any particular set of principles. It is their goal to gain power for themselves and their Leader by setting up and maintaining an eternal dire battle-for-everything conflict with an enemy of some suitable sort, and incidentally to claim to oppose the enemies’ principles. Who the enemy happens to be at the moment, what principles they happen to claim to oppose (and whose opposites they might happen to claim to stand for) at the moment, is really of absolutely no consequence.
If Trump could gain more wealth or power by supporting abortion, he’d do it. And Musk might want to remember the fate of former Hitler right-hand man Ernst Rohm.
Leni Riefenstahl had created a seminal propaganda movie called Victory of the Spirit featuring Hitler and Rohm together at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremburg Congress. After Rohm’s execution, she simply created a replacement propaganda movie at the 1935 propaganda movie, this time called Triumph of the Will. And for this movie, she was careful not to show much footage of Hitler’s lieutenants in case more of them were shot and needed to be disappeared.
At the 1934 Nuremberg conference. The movie came out in 1935.
Rohm had become too flamboyant, had brought too much attention on himself, and had angered the generals by proposing to replace the regular army with his paramilitary SA. Musk is showing signs of a similar flamboyance, attention-seeking, and pissing-off that might not be good for his health given the company he is keeping.