Opponents of Tariffs Push Appeals Court to Limit Unchecked Authority

A recent publication by the U.S. Court of International Trade revealed that a coalition of small businesses is pushing back against president Donald Trump’s extensive global tariffs, which they argue are unlawful. They are urging a federal appeals court to maintain the ruling that deemed these trade levies illegal.

the court’s decision on May 28 stated that Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by implementing sweeping tariffs—an authority reserved for Congress. However, this ruling has been temporarily stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will hear arguments on July 31 regarding whether to lift this stay or extend it further. The businesses involved submitted thier brief in support of this position on July 8.

The companies contend in their brief that “the government’s assertion of limitless power to impose adn modify tariffs based solely on an emergency declaration contradicts established law.”

This legal battle unfolds as Trump’s aggressive tariff policies continue to disrupt international markets. Notably, the hearing is scheduled just before Trump’s newly set August 1 deadline for these tariffs to take effect—a shift from his previous date of July 9—and he has made it clear there will be no further delays.

The core issue revolves around Trump’s interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977, which allows presidential regulation during crises. while Trump argues that ongoing trade deficits constitute a national emergency justifying his actions under IEEPA, opposing businesses believe this interpretation is excessively broad.

“If such vague language permitted taxation powers,” they argue in their brief, “it would grant unprecedented taxing authority never recognized in U.S. history.” they assert IEEPA should be viewed as legislation focused on sanctions rather than a blank check for tariff adjustments.

This group includes V.O.S. Selections Inc., a New York wine importer who claims these tariffs could drastically alter economic landscapes and lead many small firms toward bankruptcy due to increased costs and reduced sales opportunities.

The administration countered with its own brief last month asserting Congress had granted tariff powers to enhance presidential control over foreign relations and warned that halting these tariffs could jeopardize delicate diplomatic negotiations with other countries.

Though, business representatives highlighted how Trump’s fluctuating threats regarding tariffs create uncertainty—evidence they say points towards misuse of emergency powers under IEEPA.

The Justice Department filed its initial response on July 8 after previously securing a temporary win allowing continued enforcement of trump’s tariff orders while litigation proceeds.Government lawyers maintain that Congress intended for presidents to have delegated authority over such matters during economic emergencies and claim success in negotiating new trade agreements as evidence supporting Trump’s actions.

If ultimately ruled against by the appeals court regarding these tariffs, government officials indicated plans to escalate directly to the Supreme Court for intervention in what has become an increasingly contentious issue.

A separate group comprising nearly two hundred Democratic lawmakers also filed support briefs emphasizing legislative control over taxation matters while arguing IEEPA was not designed for imposing import duties but rather aimed at regulating financial transactions like asset freezes or prohibitions against certain dealings instead.