People are sharing their receipts as Trump’s tariffs Thailand come into effect and the results are horrifying

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times: FDA Says No Licenses for COVID-19 Vaccines for Many Americans Without Trial Data

In an intriguing twist in the realm of international trade, a lawyer representing the Department of Justice claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the president sweeping powers to negotiate trade agreements.

However, a coalition of 12 states has taken legal action, urging a federal court to suspend President Donald Trump’s extensive tariffs on imports. Their argument hinges on the assertion that Trump overreached his authority by declaring a national emergency to impose tariffs on a vast majority of U.S. trading partners.

The Court of International Trade in New York heard arguments from a three-judge panel regarding a lawsuit initiated by the Democratic attorneys general from New York, Illinois, Oregon, and nine other states back in April.

The lawsuit contends that Trump’s tariff strategies reflect a national trade policy now dictated by the whims of the President rather than a judicious application of lawful authority.

During the hearing, the states argued that Trump misinterpreted the IEEPA, which is designed to empower the executive to regulate economic transactions in times of national emergency, as a blank check for tariff imposition.

“Trump maintains that the IEEPA allows him to impose any tariff on any country for any duration without judicial review,” stated Brian Marshall, an attorney representing the state of Oregon, in court. He countered that this interpretation is flawed, emphasizing that the law is intended for addressing “unusual and extraordinary” threats and mandates that actions taken must be closely related to specific, justifiable situations.

Marshall added that the imposition of tariffs or other actions cannot solely be for negotiation leverage under the IEEPA.

On the other hand, Brett Shumate, representing the Department of Justice, posited that leveraging tariffs is indeed a valid rationale under the IEEPA. He argued that the act empowers the president to pursue trade deals and other foreign policy objectives. “These tariffs are meant to create pressure,” Shumate asserted. “They are providing the President with the requisite leverage.”

Shumate further claimed that only Congress possesses the authority to evaluate a president’s actions taken in response to an IEEPA emergency, not individual states or the judiciary.

While the IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs, Shumate argued that it encompasses the authority to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” economic transactions.

The court has yet to render a decision on the legality of Trump’s tariffs, with a ruling anticipated in the coming weeks.

Trump Unveils Tariffs on China, Canada

Trump initiated tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada back in February, primarily aiming to curb the influx of illegal fentanyl into the United States.

In April, his administration rolled out a baseline tariff of 10 percent on most countries, imposing higher rates on those with which the U.S. faces significant trade deficits, notably China.

Shortly thereafter, Trump announced a 90-day hiatus on the elevated tariffs, only to escalate the levies on China to an astonishing 145 percent, prompting Beijing to retaliate with 125 percent tariffs on U.S. imports, essentially instituting a mutual trade embargo.

Since then, the Trump administration has temporarily eased some of the most severe tariffs on China as both nations endeavor to negotiate a long-term trade agreement.

Trump has consistently cited the IEEPA as justification for both rounds of tariffs, asserting that foreign trade practices and the ongoing distribution of fentanyl-laced drugs constitute a national emergency in the U.S.

The states contest that tariffs are an unreasonable response to these issues, arguing that Trump lacks the necessary authority to impose such levies, and that only Congress can lawfully impose duties on imports.

The lawsuit is one of at least seven challenges against the Trump administration’s tariff policies, with California filing a separate action in federal court in San Francisco earlier this month.

Reuters contributed to this report.

If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism

Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times brings fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.

Our journalists have faced threats, arrests, and assaults, yet our commitment to independent journalism has remained steadfast. This year marks our 25th year of reporting free from corporate and political influence.

That’s why you’re invited to take advantage of a limited-time introductory offer — just $1 per week — allowing you to join millions already celebrating independent news.