In a bold move that could reshape the landscape of U.S. trade policy, a coalition of business groups and conservative legal advocates is gearing up to file a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s use of executive power to impose tariffs. The central argument? That the Constitution grants the authority to regulate trade and levy taxes squarely to Congress—not the president.
This upcoming legal challenge, expected to be filed in the coming days, marks a significant test of executive authority and could have wide-reaching implications not just for Trump-era tariffs but for future administrations as well.
The Constitutional Crux
At the heart of the legal argument is a question of separation of powers. According to the Constitution, the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs resides with Congress. However, in recent years, presidents have increasingly leaned on emergency powers and other statutes to take unilateral action on trade. Trump, in particular, pushed the boundaries of executive power in this area, using tariffs as a key tool of his economic and foreign policy agenda.
In this case, Trump relied on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law originally intended to give presidents the ability to manage foreign threats during national emergencies. Trump invoked this statute to justify tariffs against a range of nations, including significant measures targeting Chinese imports.
Critics argue that this is a misapplication of the law. While the IEEPA does grant the president broad authority to regulate international commerce during national emergencies, it does not explicitly include the power to impose tariffs—nor does it clearly define what constitutes a national emergency in the context of trade.
Business Groups Push Back
For many American businesses, particularly importers and manufacturers, the financial consequences of Trump’s tariffs have been significant. Tariffs on raw materials and finished goods raised costs, disrupted supply chains, and in some cases led to retaliatory measures from trading partners.
Now, some of these businesses are teaming up with constitutional scholars and conservative legal organizations to challenge the foundation of these tariffs. They argue that Trump’s actions not only harmed American commerce but also set a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive authority.
One of the organizations involved in the legal effort is the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group known for advocating against government overreach. The group recently filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of a Florida-based business that had been affected by Trump’s earlier tariffs on China. That case is still making its way through the courts and could help inform the new lawsuit.
What’s at Stake
If successful, this new challenge could force a major recalibration of how trade policy is implemented in the United States. A ruling that limits the president’s authority to unilaterally impose tariffs under emergency powers would return significant control to Congress. It would also set a legal precedent that could curtail similar actions by future presidents, regardless of political party.
“This is not just about tariffs,” said one legal expert familiar with the case. “It’s about whether a president can declare a national emergency for economic purposes and then use that as a basis to circumvent Congress. That’s a fundamental constitutional issue.”
The case also highlights a growing rift within the conservative movement. While Trump remains a powerful figure in Republican politics, many traditional conservatives—including those who advocate for free markets and limited government—are increasingly concerned about the expansion of executive power under his administration.
Looking Ahead
The legal challenge is expected to draw intense scrutiny from both legal scholars and political analysts. Depending on how the courts respond, it could take months—or even years—for the issue to be fully resolved. But regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to spark renewed debate over the proper balance of power in American governance.
For businesses still feeling the financial aftershocks of recent trade wars, the case represents a glimmer of hope. For constitutional lawyers, it presents a rare opportunity to test the limits of presidential authority in the realm of economic policy.
And for the broader public, it’s a reminder that behind every policy decision lies a complex web of legal questions—questions that, in a democracy, must ultimately be answered in the courts.
