Tariffs by Any Other Name

The latest lawsuit filed against the Trump administration over its tariffs is a case of déjà vu. But this time it’s not just about states pushing back against federal policy; it’s about something more fundamental: the rule of law.

Twenty-five states, including major economic hubs like California and New York, have joined forces to challenge the president’s use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs on imports from almost every country. This pattern is not new; it began long before the current administration took office. The issue at hand is not free trade or protectionism but whether the president is using his power in a way that bypasses Congress and skirts the laws he claims to be enforcing.

The states contend that the tariffs are an attempt to reinstate import taxes previously struck down by the Supreme Court. While the administration has faced setbacks in imposing tariffs under various statutes, this lawsuit highlights a trend: the creative use of language and legislation to achieve ends deemed unconstitutional.

The Trump administration’s reliance on Section 301 is particularly noteworthy. This statute was designed to permit targeted action against countries engaging in unfair trade practices. However, its application here is far removed from the original intent. By invoking this law to impose tariffs on nearly all imports, the administration is using it as a means to reintroduce protectionist policies deemed unconstitutional.

Law professor Barry Appleton notes that presidents have used Section 301 for decades with real guardrails: investigation, consultation, and a public record. The question remains whether this latest incarnation of tariffs will be subject to scrutiny.

The principle at stake here goes beyond the specific policy issue. It’s about checks and balances within our system of government. If the president is allowed to unilaterally impose tariffs without Congressional oversight, it sets a precedent for future administrations. The Supreme Court’s decision in February was not merely a setback for the administration but a reaffirmation of the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The 25 states leading this charge against the administration’s tariffs represent a broad coalition of interests. Their collective action sends a strong message: that they will not stand idly by while the president oversteps his authority.

This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of pushback against Trump’s trade policies. Two other lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade in July by small businesses challenge the 301 tariffs on similar grounds. These cases demonstrate growing concerns within the business community about the administration’s handling of trade policy.

Ultimately, this lawsuit represents a test case for our system of government. Will we uphold the Constitution and its checks and balances, or will we allow the president to continue pushing the boundaries of executive power? The answer will have far-reaching implications for American trade policy but also for the very fabric of our democracy.