Legal Battle Over Trump’s Tariffs: States Challenge Presidential Authority
Amidst a backdrop of economic tension, Attorney General Kris Mayes has taken a bold step by urging the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare a series of tariffs, implemented under the Trump administration, illegal. These tariffs have been a subject of debate due to their significant impact on international trade dynamics.
Mayes, along with attorney generals from various states, acknowledges the president’s power to impose emergency tariffs. However, she argues that such measures should be temporary and justified by specific reasons. In contrast, the tariffs in question were based on the trade imbalance, where the U.S. imports more than it exports, leading to tariffs that commence at 10%.
In the lawsuit, Mayes contends, “These edicts reflect a national trade policy that now hinges on the president’s whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority.” The lawsuit criticizes the president’s broad use of tariffs, arguing it disrupts the constitutional order and creates economic chaos.
The legal action also challenges the justification for tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China, which were purportedly linked to drug and migrant smuggling activities. Mayes argues that such claims lack a direct connection to the tariff imposition, which effectively acts as a surcharge on goods from these countries.
At a press conference, Mayes explained, “This is a necessary response to an administration that continues to operate far outside the bounds of the law and the Constitution.” This lawsuit marks her 13th against former President Trump, emphasizing the administration’s disregard for the separation of powers.
Mayes, alongside Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, highlights the broader implications of the tariffs on state economies. For example, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) faces increased costs due to higher tariffs on imported equipment and parts, impacting infrastructure projects.
Further, state universities engaged in research are affected, as they rely on specialized equipment not available domestically. The SHIELD USA project, which involves advanced semiconductor technology, faces a potential cost increase of $1.4 million due to tariffs.
Business owners like Bill Sandweg, owner of Copper Star Coffee, are also feeling the pinch. He faces challenges as key ingredients and equipment are subject to high tariffs, with some spices for chai coffee facing 47% tariffs. Sandweg noted, “Our specialty equipment is not built in the United States,” highlighting the reliance on international imports.
According to the legal challengers, the tariffs function as a tax on imports, with studies indicating that 95% of these costs are borne by U.S. individuals and companies. The attorneys general warn of broader economic repercussions, including depressed wages, slower growth, and inflation.
The lawsuit demands the court to recognize the lack of legal grounding for the tariffs, citing that the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes and duties. While Congress has authorized the president to negotiate tariff reductions, the challengers argue that none of the prerequisites for imposing tariffs have been fulfilled.
The president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is also contested, as the law requires an “unusual and extraordinary threat” which the challengers argue is not present in this case. The persistent trade deficit cited by the administration does not meet this criterion, according to the lawsuit.
The legal action criticizes the arbitrary nature of the tariffs, which even extend to regions like Diego Garcia and the Heard and McDonald Islands, which have no trade involvement. The lawsuit concludes that the tariffs are based on an unaccepted methodology and lack a basis in economic theory.
—
Read More Arizona News
