Conservative legal group sues Trump admin over China tariffs

A conservative legal group is taking a stand against President Donald Trump’s tariffs on China, labeling them as an “unlawful attempt” to burden Americans with higher taxes on Chinese imports. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a complaint in a Florida district court, challenging Trump’s use of emergency power to impose tariffs on all imports from China.

Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel at NCLA, criticized Trump’s actions, stating that the president had overstepped his authority by misusing emergency powers, encroaching on Congress’s jurisdiction over tariffs, and violating the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

The legal challenge focuses on Trump’s executive order issued on Feb. 1, titled “Imposing Duties to Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China.” This order was later amended on Mar. 3 to increase tariffs on Chinese imports from 10% to 20%.

Plaintiff Emily Ley, the owner of Simplified, a Florida-based company, argues that Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs is unlawful. Ley contends that her business will suffer as a result of Trump’s actions.

John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at NCLA, explained that the complaint highlights the incorrect use of statutes by Trump to impose tariffs, emphasizing that the president is utilizing the wrong statute in this instance. Vecchione pointed out that IEEPA requires tariffs to be necessary for an emergency, which he believes is not the case here.

The lawsuit seeks to prevent the administration from enforcing the executive orders and to reverse any modifications to the tariff schedule resulting from them. The NCLA argues that granting the president such authority would give him excessive power to bypass Congress’s oversight over tariffs.

The White House defended the executive orders, asserting that President Trump has broad authority to impose tariffs in response to national emergencies such as the opioid crisis. The administration expressed confidence in the legality of the tariffs and anticipated success in court.

The legal challenge comes shortly after Trump announced the tariff plan during a speech at the White House Rose Garden. The president declared a 34% tariff on China, prompting retaliatory measures from China in the form of matching tariffs on U.S. goods.

The new tariffs are scheduled to take effect on April 10, escalating tensions between the two countries. Trump, in a statement on Truth Social, criticized China’s response, accusing them of panicking and making strategic mistakes.

Overall, the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs on China underscores the ongoing debate over executive authority, congressional oversight, and the constitutional boundaries of tariff powers. The outcome of this lawsuit will have significant implications for U.S. trade policy and the balance of power between the branches of government.