The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Liberty Justice Center and I File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs
It was filed today in the US Court of International Trade.

Today, the Liberty Justice Center and I filed a lawsuit in the US Court of International Trade challenging the legality of Donald Trump's gargantuan "Liberation Day" tariffs, on behalf of five US businesses that import goods from many of the countries targeted by the tariffs. The case is entitled VOS Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
In previous posts, I previewed our key arguments and explained why Trump's partial pause of the tariffs does not end the madness or obviate the need to challenge this usurpation of legislative power in court.
To briefly summarize, we argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) doesn't authorize tariffs at all, that even if it does the bilateral trade deficits targeted by the "Liberation Day" tariffs do not qualify as an "emergency" or as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" (both prerequsites to invoking IEEPA), that Trump's use of IEEPA for this purpose runs afoul of the "major questions" doctrine, and that - if these actions are authorized by IEEPA - it would violate constitutional limits on delegation of legislative power to the executive. If we prevail on any one of these points, we win the case.
The complaint is available here.
Here is an excerpt from the Liberty Justice Center press release announcing the case:
On April 14, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's authority to unilaterally issue the "Liberation Day" tariffs, which are devastating small businesses across the country. The lawsuit argues that the Administration has no authority to issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs without congressional approval.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, highlights the unprecedented nature of the tariffs, including a global 10% tariff on nearly all imports, with additional higher tariffs targeting dozens of countries based on dubious calculations of foreign trade barriers.
The President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the "Liberation Day" tariffs, as well as the tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. But under that law, the President may invoke emergency economic powers only after declaring a national emergency in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security, foreign policy, or the U.S. economy originating outside of the United States. The lawsuit argues that the Administration's justification— a trade deficit in goods—is neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat. Trade deficits have existed for decades, and do not constitute a national emergency or threat to security. Moreover, the Administration imposed tariffs even on countries with which the U.S. does not have a trade deficit, further undermining the administration's justification.
And as the Complaint explains, IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose across-the-board tariffs—it does not even authorize tariffs at all; and even if the IEEPA did extend such power to the President, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's power to impose tariffs.
"No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences," said Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center. "The Constitution gives the power to set tax rates—including tariffs—to Congress, not the President."
"If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on a law that doesn't even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power, I don't know what is," said Ilya Somin, co-counsel, law professor, Scalia Law School, George Mason University.
The case is filed on behalf of five owner-operated businesses who have been severely harmed by the tariffs and highlights the human and economic toll of unchecked executive power….
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
Just deport Ilya....
Dr. Ed, always ready to deport U.S. citizens that he doesn't agree with.
Somin is anti-American in everything he does.
If we're going to go the route of just making blind accusations that someone is "anti-American" because..., well, why, exactly? Because they oppose the President, I suppose.
Well, I might be tempted to call someone anti-American that supports a President that acts so outside of the law that it brings obvious comparisons to the authoritarian rulers that this President openly admires for their "strength". A President that acts in ways that are exactly what the Founders fought against to form this country.
I won't actually do that, though, since wielding labels denigrating the patriotism of one's political opponents is a sign of weakness.
Gene Wilder had the most appropriate label for such people.
Schlafly means "Jewish."
???????
Well played.
I say Somin is anti-Americans because his posts usually take the side of foreigners, against the interests of Americans. For example, he frequently argues in favor of open borders.
In spite of your name-calling, Pres. Trump is no more authoritarian than Biden and other Presidents.
Open borders are not against the interests of Americans.
For decades, polls have shown that Americans are overwhelmingly against open borders. So yes, open borders are contrary to what Americans want.
Oh hey what a new and different thesis you found.
Let me guess -- you think that you know what is good for Americans better than Americans themselves.
Since there are Americans who think each side of every issue would be best, literally everyone with an opinion about anything thinks that.
Usually people have opinions about what is best for themselves. Somin wants to subject Americans to excess immigration, against the wishes of a great majority of Americans.
Usually people have opinions about what is best for themselves
Which is why you want to deport some dude from the Internet. And why you talk about what's good for Americans, not just yourself.
This is not how people work, including yourself.
Gaslighto is a parasite and Ilya hates Americans.
And Somin talks about what is good for foreigners, and how Americans should suffer his policies.
So you changed your claim.
Oh, cool. For decades, polls have shown that Americans overwhelmingly favor higher corporate income taxes. So I guess the folks putting together the Republican budget plans are anti-American too?
All
animalsAmericans are equal, but some are more equal than others.The Americans that appear to matter poll overwhelmingly in favor of lower taxes for themselves.
Polls show that people want lower taxes for themselves, and higher taxes for others. It is hard to make everyone happy.
Polls show that people want lower taxes for themselves, and higher taxes for others. It is hard to make everyone happy.
And if it is true that a majority of Americans want less immigration, including legal immigration, then they also want to keep the low prices they pay for food that is harvested by large numbers of immigrants (including large numbers of unauthorized immigrants, or "illegal" as many call them), and for lower prices in many other industries that employ large numbers of low-skill or unskilled immigrants. It really is hard to make everyone happy.
If you think that cheaper food is adequate compensation for all the foreign workers, I can understand that. But that is not Somin's position. He wants the foreigners regardless.
I didn't write that to say something about Somin's position. I wrote that to say something about what you wrote that I quoted. My point doesn't line up with yours completely, but you were noting a contradiction in how the majority of people responding to a poll could want things that are mutually exclusive between different subsets within that majority. As in, one group that wants a different group to pay more so that they could have lower taxes is actually the other group that should be paying more according to the one the first group wanted to pay more. Thus, they can't possibly both get what they want.
Some of the people that want less immigration also want the benefits of the lower labor costs that come with more immigrants. Thus, a different kind of contradiction, but still a contradiction because those people can't possibly get both of the things that they want.
This is all in response to:
For decades, polls have shown that Americans are overwhelmingly against open borders. So yes, open borders are contrary to what Americans want.
So what should politicians do when voters want two mutually exclusive things? I don't think you even need a poll to believe that Americans overwhelmingly don't want to pay more for fresh produce.
I say Somin is anti-Americans because his posts usually take the side of foreigners, against the interests of Americans.
Boy, wait'll ya hear about the President and a European country under assault by a tyrant!
"Gene Wilder had the most appropriate label for such people."
Hollywood, like the law profession, is overwhelmingly polluted by arrogant progs. Dog bites man.
Hollywood...is overwhelmingly polluted by arrogant progs. Dog bites man.
Boy, wait'll ya hear about who's the president!
Whatever you make of the merits of this lawsuit—in what possible way is it anti-American?
How is challenging the Executive for usurping Congressional powers and violating the law "anti-American"? Or is not sucking Trump's dick now anti-American in your view?
If not yet, it will be.
Now there's a helpful comment.
KMA, Roger.
You're a pathetic worm.
That's what I came here to say!
His TDS is out of control.
How about the US just withdraws from that court?
You came here to advocate for deporting an American citizen?
Yo Mark....USCIT is a US FEDERAL COURT.
"The United States Court of International Trade, established under Article III of the Constitution, has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of the customs and international trade laws of the United States."
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/
Oh, dear...
Cue the reflexively angry commenters who insist on meticulous compliance with procedural and substantive law--but only when not applied to something Trump wants to do.
Your quip would hold weight if prior administrations would have been as compliant with procedural and substantive law, and you whined about it then. But you didn't.
I love the projection, though...
Some MAGA make up stuff to whatabout about, but I Callahan is too lazy even for that. He just says IKYABWAI?
Good luck, Ilya! Every poster saying to the contrary is a bot or troll!
As I coincidentally just learned this morning, it's good to see Professor Somin has filed his case in the correct court with jurisdiction.
do you think the other tariff lawsuit (filed by the NCLA) was filed in the wrong court? (non-lawyer asking). Prof Somin filed at CIT, whereas that one was filed at U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. https://nclalegal.org/press_release/ncla-sues-to-stop-trump-admin-from-imposing-emergency-tariffs-that-congress-never-authorized/
Haven't looked at those in detail. My comment was an implicit nod to the lawsuits about federal grant cancellations or workforce reductions, which would seem to belong in the Court of Federal Claims. But of course plaintiffs want equitable relief right now to prevent these actions and restore the flow of money, so they went to district courts. Not collect at a later date after full arguments on the merits.
I imagine this the venture capital theory of such lawsuits: file as many as possible, in different venues, hoping one will succeed. National injunctions for the win!
The underlying legal theory is mostly flawed. There's nothing special about this delegated authority over any other. If it's illegal, then much of the administrative state is. (Feature not a bug for some, I realize.) The only perhaps legit question is whether emergency declarations can be applied to certain tariff authority, but that's a statutory interpretation question.
The cultists naturally oppose Ilya because what the Leader wants, is the law. Plus many - most? - cultists have suspicions about foreign Jews.
Why do erstwhile "learned" people say things as patently dumb as this?
Some of us, not cultists who have never voted for the Orange Man, oppose Ilya because he's mostly wrong on the law.
As with much of our contemporary problems, they could be solved by Congress. But it lacks the will or desire. Avoiding responsibility is a desirable feature of the administrative state. Alas, in many cases, that's not unconstitutional.
The worst is people who only oppose executive overreach when the other guys do it. In this case, that's not Somin. He's principled about his wrong beliefs on immigration and international border enforcement, but still wrong about the law.
Yes - one can tell you're not one of those SRG2 is talking about because you oppose Prof. Somin's comments, and don't just come in yelling he's bad.
I don't think this problem is to be laid at Congress' feet; Trump caused it.
Congress could fix it, and it sucks they're not currently equipped to. But Trump is the one abusing the process to do whatever he wants.
And what he wants is economically pretty bad.
What's the argument for standing?
You are injured by having to pay more for goods, surely?
Yes, 4 years of Biden-Flation was very painful.
So it's government's job to set prices now?
Scratch a liberal, find a government planning Commie underneath...
Insofar as setting "emergency" tariffs is intentional price manipulation, what's your point?
The plaintiffs are paying taxes that were (according to them) imposed illegally. Why wouldn’t they have standing?
Taxpayer standing is a thing (and mostly impossible to obtain). Being harmed by a tariff imposed in violation of the law (as they are arguing this is) seems like it may work under traditional standing analysis.
“Taxpayer standing” (or, more accurately, non-standing) refers to the idea that your payment of taxes entitles you to challenge the legality of any government policy that those taxes are used to carry out. That theory has generally been rejected.
However, being required to pay a tax certainly gives you standing to challenge the legality of that very tax!
That's my opinion as well. Say I wanted to challenge funding to NPR on the idea that I don't like the fact that a small portion of my taxes are funding it. I haven't established a "concrete and particularized" injury---my harm is too attenuated and has not been held to be enough to confer standing.
However if what I was challenging was a tax itself that I was being required to illegally pay, there are many examples of that throughout history. That's how social security was (unsuccessfully) challenged for example.
While I have qualms about the major questions doctrine, I'm very glad that someone is launching a thoughtful challenge to these tariffs—the legality of which has been generally assumed by the media and by Democratic (not to mention Republican) politicians. If the doctrine ever applies, it should apply here; and as you point out, there are two other good reasons while the tariffs are unlawful.
Incidentally, there seems to be a typo at Page 18, Paragraph 71 of the complaint, where it says that the tax burden will be "$1.4 to 2.2 billion over the next ten years." I'm pretty sure that should be "trillion," not "billion." My blunt pencil math is $1300 X 130MM households X 10 years = about $1.7 trillion.
It should certainly apply here: an old law is being used in unforseen ways and on a truly massive scale.
Smacks of going back to common carrier arguments promulgated by both parties for different Internet things (ISP throttling and social media) that had nothing to do with yapping over a phone.
Or assuming out of the blue CO2 is now a "pollutant", and so the regulatory agency has control over industry almost as deep as raw "commerce clause" received wisdom.
Speaking of which, let's have common carrier-like status for all legal financial transaction transfers banks and related do, so regulation by raised eyebrow, or reputational risk, ceases to be a side gig for the power mongers.
Well-written complaint. Thanks for the effort.
Any bets on how long it will take for Trump to try to pull Federal funding from the Antonin Scalia School of Law?
More seriously, Prom. Somin, are you planning to ask for a Preliminary Injuction? TRO? (if answering won't give away litigation strategy)
Major questions doctrine; pshaw! Just enforce the non-delegation doctrine.
Wow. It's a hard call which of those doctrines is more made up out of whole cloth.
Ilya, when is the TRO request being filed?
Tell me more about the Court of International Trade. I've never heard of it before.
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/
Illya Somin hates the idea of the US existing as anything other than an economic zone that accepts infinity immigrants. The only way he'd be happy is if the entire third world was standing in the country
The way you're going, the US will be a 3rd world country before too long.
And then they will stop coming. It's brilliant!
The Crawling Chaos is really concerned about the 3rd world coming to America...something doesn't add up.
There is no chaos. Though I see you've got your talking points memorized...
https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/this-is-fine/
This is Fine!
As a wise black President once said:
Ia Ia cthulu fhtagn
He apparently hasn't thought that through yet.
At least a billion people from Africa, Asia and S. America would come here if possible.
What would our country look like then?
There might be 500 people that would want a table at a restaurant that has 50 seats. You think people would keep trying to enter if there weren't any seats left?
This isn't how immigration works. People will try and immigrate to the US for as long as there are jobs for them if they do get here. This myth that people are coming here to soak up welfare is silly.
yawn
"... why Trump's partial pause of the tariffs does not end the madness ... "
Sums up the intellectual depth of the above author. How can anyone refute such powerful thinking ?
Myopic reasoning does not bode well for valid arguments. To state things "have existed for decades, and do not constitute a national emergency " is like saying long abusing pedophiles are OK too, for they've plied their ways without objection.
No, it's like saying they "do not constitute a national emergency".
As a national problem gets slowly worse, at what point is it "legal" to call it a national emergency? Just because it wasn't a national emergency yesterday, can it not be a national emergency today?
Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President since at least the 1934 Reciprocal Tariff Act. For all his concerns about tariff "madness", Somin imagines a ludicrous world in which Congress must vote on every single increase or decrease in tariffs. Country X announces it's quadrupling tariffs on U.S. goods. What can the U.S. do? Assign a congressional committee to study the issue, draft a bill, send it to committee (or subcommittee) for markup, have the committee vote, send it to the floor, repeat this process in the other chamber, send it back for reconciliation, then six months later send it to the President's desk. Talk about "madness".
And what the myopic Somin, consumed by his Trump hatred, seems that delegation of power to RAISE tariffs also includes the power to LOWER them. But, let's be real, does anyone think Somin would be suing if Trump had lowered tariffs? His concern isn't really over "separation of powers", but the globalist fetish for open borders (open without restriction to foreign people AND foreign goods).
Does he really want a world where a future president cannot respond rapidly to favorable action on tariffs by another country with rapid reciprocity? Again, his myopia won't let him see beyond five seconds into the future, beyond "TRUMPPPPPPP!"
Congress CAN delegate trade authority to the President. Congress HAS delegated that authority since at least 1934. And Congress MUST delegate that authority in a modern world that demands flexibility and rapidity in dealing with fast-moving global markets. I predict the courts will ultimately reject all his arguments.
Oh FFS, the global markets/economy did NOT change on January 20th - only the President did.
This is NOT a response to "fast-moving global markets."
This is myopic, low-brow, bully tactics which are damaging US INTERESTS (home and abroad).
Well, whatever. You've missed the point entirely. Whether these particular tariffs are good or bad policy is beside the point. Congress can overturn them if it wants. But those are political questions for the political branches, not legal ones for the courts.
You're reading the word emergency out of the law to give the President no limits. This is not in keeping with the statutory text. Nor past practice. There is no evidence unlimited power to levvy tariffs was Congressional intent.
You are wrong in a way that leans towards us having a monarch not a President. That's not America.
And your idea that Congress can act puts the burden on the wrong party as well as ignoring any connection to the actual realities of Congressional action over the past 2 decades.
We're not reading the word emergency out of it, (And you've got a lot of nerve getting picky about whether there's an 'emergency' after all the Covid related 'emergency' actions you were fine with.) we're noticing that the only statutory definition of 'emergency' is "the President says there's an emergency".
I happen to think that's a bad idea. It's a bad idea that got enacted into law, though.
This is you, reading the term out of the statute. The statute would be no different were the term left out, under your formulation.
In legislative analysis, a term not being formally defined does not mean it has no definition. A moment's thought would see why that would create a ton of work to duplicate the value of the English language.
You are wrong. You are trying to have your 'this is a bad idea' cake and 'slavishly support Trump' eat it too.
The law says what it says. If Covid was an emergency to you, the welfare of blue collar Americans is an emergency to Trump. You could always run for office and reverse it all.
welfare
Commie.
Brett, you keep commenting about the lack of statutory definition, but the word itself brings some meaning to the table. The fact that the word is present in the statute has to have some meaning.
Your interpretation makes the word superfluous, which is an interpretational no-no.
Congress has unlimited power to levy tariffs, doesn't it? It has given that power to the President by giving him the power to "regulate importation" if he declares an emergency. It could have qualified that delegation, but it didn't. It can take back all or some of that power if it so chooses. It can undo these particular tariffs if it so chooses. And yet, it hasn't.
As for the declaration of an emergency, Congress has left that to the discretion of the President. Congress can terminate that declaration at any time. Presidents have declared hundreds of emergencies, a great many of which would hardly meet Webster's definition of "emergency", but no court has ever deigned to substitute its judgment for that of the President, to whom Congress has given the discretion, reserving to itself the power to override the President's declaration. I don't think the courts will do now what they have never done before.
But are you really wound up over tariffs, or just wound up over Trump? I'll leave that judgment to others. I have simply made my prediction about how this case will turn out. I could certainly be wrong. I guess we'll see.
I'm wound up over abuse of process, and misreading of statutes by people who are Trump first and reality/country second.
Who's U.S. interests? Certainly not the manufacturing workers and their families, who've been screwed over by the entire globalist mindset. I'm sure the CEO's and stockholders are really happy with the status quo.
I'm so old, I remember when liberals didn't automatically defend corporations. Tell me - what changed you?
"Somin imagines a ludicrous world in which Congress must vote on every single increase or decrease in tariffs. "
That's not the world we live in at the moment, but it's hardly a ludicrous world. Rather, it's a "Where Congress actually deigns to do their job" world.
No, it's not practicable. You can't negotiate without some authority to deliver. This authority can be limited, but it must exist.
Nor is Congress intended to be a speedy and decisive body. Your definition of Congress doing their jobs is not in keeping with originalism, current practice, or the fundamental structure of deliberative bodies work.
Other than that great comment.
Also a ludicrous world in which Congress must vote on every single increase or decrease in income taxes, and a ludicrous world in which Congress must vote on every single increase or decrease in estate taxes, and a ludicrous world in which Congress must vote on every single statute criminalizing a course of conduct, and a ludicrous world in which Congress must vote on every single policy to forgive student loans… well, you get the idea.
Why should the U.S. "do" anything in that case? But assuming Congress wanted to, yes, that's what the U.S. can "do."
Probably he would not. As a lawyer, maybe you can explain how his clients would have standing to sue if Trump had lowered the tariffs imposed on them.
Yes. Tariffs are not, ever, an emergency. And if there were some incredibly fantastical scenario where they really were, Congress could act quickly.
I am thinking that it probably would be fine for Congress to pass a law saying something like, "Tariffs will be set according to this formula based on these facts:" and then leave it to the executive to determine what the facts are and apply the formula.
But that isn't what is happening here, of course. The President is arbitrarily deciding what constitutes an "emergency" and then setting the tariffs based on his feelings at the moment.
The nerve of that guy, hallucinating ridiculous stuff like
(Complaint, para 34). Surely we should all just genuflect to King Don the First instead.
Besides which, isn't the defense of regulation by federal agency the exact same argument? The world is too complex for Congress to pass on every single regulation? I love how these people adopt the argument when it suit them, and argue against it when it doesn't. It's almost as if everything they argue is in bad faith.
This is an excellent challenge, and I agree we desperately need a ruling on the limits of delegation of Congressional authority.
I have the distinct impression that I am living in a country that runs on two entirely different administrations of law. The first administration is grounded in the Constitution. The second administration is "grounded" in realpolitik, by which we mean: whatever the current administration wants (and can get away with), it gets.
So yes, please, by all means let us have a decision of how far authority may be delegated. And, fine, apply it first to immigration and tariffs. But once those doors are opened, now we can aim the gun sights of the Constitution against the bulk of the bloated federal state.
What authorizes the government to require workers to pay into the government's retirement plan, or to its health insurance program, or to any of the innumerable social programs which constitute the majority of its spending? To the extent that these things rely upon a delegation of power, a restrictive Supreme Court ruling on delegation can be used as a lever to pry these apart.
And my hope is that such an attempt will force Congress and all the state legislatures to either amend the Constitution to specifically authorize these efforts, or stop working outside of it. A government only has legitimacy to the extent that it operates with the consent of the governed.
Could you describe the ways in which Congressional tax authority is delegated and to whom? I can see the point about delegation of some things to various departments like the EPA (not that I entirely agree), but tax delegation is out of left field. Congress levies taxes, including the laws it passed to create the social security program, the America Cares Act, etc.
Those things do not rely on a delegation of power. They're just taxes, expressly imposed by Congress as authorized by the constitution.
I think the question here is one of ordinary statutory construction with no need for special doctrines like the major questions doctrine, and no need to address constitutional issues either.
I would focus on the definition of emergency. An emergency, whatever else it may be, is something that emerges. “Emerge” in turn is something that rises out. It is an external event, something that comes up suddenly in the outside world.
Whatever else an emergency is, it is not an internal change in policy views about existing phenomenon with no change in the outside world. The fact that a new person decides that something that has been going on a long time is a big problem and something has to be done about it simply does not meet the definition of an emergency.
It doesn’t matter how bad a problem the new person thinks it is or how criminally negligent his predecessors were for ignoring it. An emergency requires the existence of recently and suddenly arisen events. If there are are no such events, there is no emergency. Emergency powers are simply not available to address chronic problems.
I could imagine the S.Ct. writing an opinion based solely on the statutory construction of the IEEPA, thereby avoiding the MQD and proper delegation under the constitution.
But the complaint includes all of the above for good reasons. There are a couple of Executive power maximalists on the S.Ct., so what happens if they convince a majority to defer to the Exec’s “I stubbed my toe … it’s Ghina’s fault! Emergency! Moar tariffs!” approach to governance?
As Prof Somin notes, “If we prevail on any one of these points, we win the case.”
As Orin Kerr keeps pointing out on Twitter, apparently the "emergency" is rapidly shifting day by day.
So you would agree that something like Covid, while an emergency early on before legislatures could meet, should not have been subject to state governors' emergency decrees after, say July 2020?
I can agree with you. I just want to see if you will distinguish that somehow.
That would be a question of state law, of course. But as an abstract principle, yes, I think state legislatures should've legislated after a few months.
(I don't think that's analogous to what we're discussing; covid was still an emergent matter after a few months while the trade situation is decades old.)
There is a typo in paragraph 89 of the complaint.
The word should be 'irreparably' and not 'irreparable'.
I suppose it is too late to edit the complaint.
Nothing like proving you are part of the problem instead of part of the cure right Ilya?
What problem?
yawn