Compendium of Writings About the Trump Tariff Case

Links to my writings about our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs and related issues.

(NA)

Particularly since our win in the US  Court of International Trade, there has been considerable public interest in the case against Donald Trump's "Liberation Day Tariffs" filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself, on behalf of five small businesses harmed by the tariffs. For the benefit of the media, legal commentators, and other interested readers, this post compiles links to all my writings about the case and related issues.

Unless otherwise noted, all links are to pieces originally published right here on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.  I omitted posts that simply link to media appearances, or to pieces I published elsewhere. The items are in chronological order:

"Challenge Trump's Tariffs Under the Nondelegation and Major Questions Doctrines," Feb. 2, 2025. This is the post that started it all. As a result of it, the Liberty Justice Center contacted me to explore the possibility of bringing a lawsuit against Trump's IEEPA tariffs under the theories I outlined.

"Trump's Tariff Power Grab May not be Over," Feb. 4, 2025. I suggested the suspension of Trump's first set of IEEPA tariffs wouldn't end the tariff power grab. The prediction proved accurate.

"Challenging Trump's Tariffs Under the Major Question Doctrine," Mar. 29, 2025 (analysis of ideas developed by Prof. Jennifer Hillman).

"Looking for Plaintiffs to Challenge Trump's IEEPA Tariffs in Court," April 2, 2025. This post led to the finding of most of our plaintiffs for the eventual case against the "Liberation Day" tariffs, including lead plaintiff VOS Selections, Inc.

"Why Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs are Illegal,"Apr. 3, 2025. In this post, I first outlined the main arguments against the "Liberation Day" tariffs (which were announced by the White House the day before).

"NCLA Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump's IEEPA Tariffs Against China," Apr. 4, 2025. Analysis of a more limited lawsuit challenging Trump's IEEPA tariff.

"Trump Partially Pauses "Liberation Day" Tariffs," Apr. 9, 2025.  Why the partial pause didn't end the tariff threat.

"The Tariff Madness Isn't Over," Apr. 10, 2025.

"Blackfeet Nation Indians File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Canada Tariffs," Apr. 13, 2025.

"Liberty Justice Center and I File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs," Apr. 14, 2025. Post on the day we filed the lawsuit.

"California Files Lawsuit Against Trump's Tariffs," Apr. 16, 2025.

"The Constitutional Case Against Trump's Trade War," Lawfare, Apr. 18, 2025. My most comprehensive statement of the case against the tariffs.

"Twelve States File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's IEEPA Tariffs," Apr. 23, 2025.

"Bipartisan Group of Prominent Legal Scholars and Former Government Officials Files Amicus Brief Supporting Our Case Challenging Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs," Apr. 23, 2025.

"Pacific Legal Foundation Files Case Challenging Trump's IEEPA Tariffs," Apr. 25, 2025.

"How Trump's Tariffs Threaten the Rule of Law," May 2, 2025. I think this is an underappreciated aspect of the tariff issue.

"Why the Major Questions Doctrine Applies to the President, Not Just Executive Agencies," May 2, 2025. This is a crucial issue in the major questions aspect of the IEEPA tariff litigation.

"Thoughts on Today's Oral Argument in Our Case Against Trump's IEEPA Tariffs," May 13, 2025. My assessment of the oral argument in our case. I thought the court was skeptical of the administration's assertion of virtually unlimited tariff authority.

"Trump's 'Emergencies' Are Pretexts for Undermining the Constitution," Lawfare, May 15, 2025. This article situates the tariff litigation in the broader context of Trump's abuse of emergency powers.

"Thoughts on the Oral Argument in the Oregon Case Against Trump's IEEPA Tariffs," May 24, 2025. The Oregon oral argument also left me feeling optimistic.

"We Won Our Tariff Case!" May 28, 2025. My immediate reaction to the Court of International Trade ruling in our favor.

"Federal Circuit Issues Brief Administrative Stay in Our Tariff Case," May 29, 2025. Why the administrative stay is only a modest, temporary setback.

"Federal District Court Issues Another Ruling Against Trump's IEEPA Tariffs," May 29, 2025. Analysis of a district court ruling against the IEEPA tariffs.

"A Victory for  Separation of Powers," The Atlantic, May 30, 2025 (non-paywalled version here). My most extensive analysis of the judicial rulings against the IEEPA tariffs, and their broader implications.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Summary: "Orange Man Bad..."

[David Nieporent]

You'd have to be able to read to summarize.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Malika the Maiz]

This is no place for your self-reflection.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yep. Ilya is big on the "sound & fury..."

[Malika the Maiz]

Ok Benji.

[thesafesurfer]

Still waiting for Ilya's dire economic predictions resulting from Trump's tariffs to manifest in reality. Stay in your legal lane Mr. Somin because the economic lane is not friendly to your dogma.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which tariffs do you mean? The ones he has actually implemented at any time, or the ones he has since TACO'd from?

And what do you "predict" would happen if the government substantially raised taxes on the American people and their businesses? Nothing?

[bernard11]

Your economic lane sounds like a rough gravel path that takes you over a cliff.

[Malika the Maiz]

Stay in one’s lane indeed, dude!

“The U.S. economy shrank in the first three months of 2025, contracting by an annualized rate of 0.3 percent — a stark reversal after nearly three years of solid growth, as tariff-related uncertainty upended spending patterns and raised fears of an impending recession.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/04/30/gdp-q1-economy-tariffs/

[Shoota1488]

trump is apparently privately frustrated with barrett, and to a lesser extent kavanagh and gorsuch. he is also angry at the fedsoc asshole who approved them.

trump should have known that barrett would be trouble after she adopted two nogs from haiti. she probably ruled against all gun rights because guns are used by whites to defend themselves against violent blacks and latinos, and she doesn't want an upstanding white american to shoot her little adopted jamal or shaniqua when they act out on their genetics

1488

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You are such a bright, shining light of humanity.

[Purple Martin]

First time I've seen that name and I, for one, appreciate how quickly he demonstrates who he is. Allows a quick decision to spend not another microsecond on such a waste of pixels.

Blocked.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think it’s good for everyone to see who supports the Mad King.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That went without saying, in my case.

Yes, thanks to Mr Greybox for making it so easy.

[ah....Clem]

Excellent work. Keep it up.

Of course, the actual legal filings are more important than articles and blog posts, but as they say "why not both?"

[bye]

Every time you do this you unwittingly and stupidly re-inforce the truth that tariffs ARE NOT a simply definable legal thing.
Do it 5 more times and you will see more responses like mine ????

[Stepped Reckoner]

Is there any way that an antitrust suit can be brought against Ilya for improper monopolization of this blog?

[ah....Clem]

If you contact Prof. Volokh directly, he will cheerfully refund your subscription fee.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Would that cover Josh, too?

(Duopolization?)

[kramartini]

The Federal Circuit is hearing the appeal en banc. Perhaps they are preparing to overturn Yoshida?

[ah....Clem]

They don't need to overturn Yoshida to rule in favor of the plaintiffs. For one thing, the facts are quite different, but more importantly if they simply apply Yoshida the administration should lose.

Per Politico:

...the Yoshida decision rejected a key proposition that is at the heart of the government’s defense of Trump’s tariffs — the notion that courts have no power to review a president’s actions under IEEPA.
The court ruled in Yoshida that each presidential action under the statute “must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.” The court went on to emphasize that its ruling, while favorable to the Nixon administration, was not a blanket approval of “any future surcharge of a different nature, or any surcharge differently applied or any surcharge not reasonably related to the emergency declared;” that the president’s actions under the statute “must also bear a reasonable relation to the particular emergency confronted;” and that “emergencies are expected to be shortlived.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/05/29/trump-tariffs-court-defeat-00374194

[kramartini]

But overturning Yoshida would be simpler. "Regulate" doesn't mean "tax". Done.

Even if the Federal Circuit doesn't overturn Yoshida, the DC Circuit or 9th Circuit may...