The Trump administration has suffered two major court defeats on tariffs this year, with the Supreme Court in February finding no authority under IEEPA and a…
Published
Source: Reason
A federal trade court ruled in May that Trump's Section 122 tariffs were illegal because he failed to identify balance-of-payments deficits as required by the statute. Those tariffs, subject to a 150-day statutory limit, expired on July 24. Rather than accept the legal defeats, the administration invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act, which authorizes tariffs in response to foreign practices that are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden U.S. commerce. The new tariffs targeted 86 economies, accounting for nearly all U.S. imports, based on allegations that those countries failed to prohibit imports of goods produced with forced labor. The Liberty Justice Center and law firm Akin Gump, both of which had challenged prior Trump tariffs, immediately asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to block these newest import taxes. They noted the government had failed to explain how the targeted countries fell short, how their alleged failures burdened U.S. commerce, or why the new tariffs would address the problem. The Liberty Justice Center called the forced-labor justification a pretext for reinstating the invalidated global tariff regime. The group argued Trump's reading of Section 301, like his interpretation of IEEPA, would violate the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for policies of vast economic and political significance.