Judicial decision states that president exceeded constitutional limits when trying to tax countries with commercial surplus in relation to the United States
The United States International Commerce, based in Manhattan, ruled on Wednesday, 28, to suspend the implementation of widespread commercial tariffs announced by former President Donald Trump.
The tariffs, which had been named “Liberation Day” by the former president himself, were considered unconstitutional because they extrapolated the powers granted to the Chief Executive.
According to the Court’s understanding, the United States Constitution gives Congress exclusive competence to regulate foreign trade.
The Court assessed that this legislature cannot be replaced by the president’s emergency measures, even under the justification of national economic protection.
The court decision was motivated by a lawsuit filed by Liberty Justice Center, a legal organization of apartisan orientation, which represents five small US companies directly impacted by tariffs. These companies depend on imports from countries that would be hit by tariff measures.
Among the companies involved are an alcohol importer located in New York and a manufacturer of educational materials and musical instruments based in Virginia.
Legal representatives claimed that the imposition of tariffs would bring direct damage to the commercial activity of the enterprises, compromising their operational capacity and competitiveness in the market.
In the action, Liberty Justice Center argued that the then president improperly used the International Emergency Economic Powers Law (IEEPA), originally created to deal with threats to national security.
The organization maintained that the measures adopted by Trump did not meet legal emergency criteria nor were based on risks concrete to the US economy.
According to the Court, the attempt to justify the tariffs based on the trade balance between the United States and certain countries does not, in itself, constitute an economic emergency.
The judges understood that the measure had broader characteristics of economic policy than national security, which reinforced the thesis that only Congress would have the authority to deliberate on the subject.
In addition to the action of Liberty Justice Center, six other judicial contests related to Trump management tariff policy are being processed in US courts. Among them are processes moved by thirteen states and groups representing small entrepreneurs who alleging commercial damages and violation of the constitutional principles of separation of powers.
The case analyzed in this decision marks the first major judicial setback to the rates announced during the Trump government on the grounds of rebalanced the US trade balance.
The former president had stated, during the presentation of the measure, that the initiative aimed to “correct unfair practices” and “protect US jobs”, but there was no formal presentation of evidence that affected countries would be violating international business agreements.
The decision of the International Court of Commerce does not definitely close the issue, but represents a relevant legal precedent. The tariffs will remain suspended until there is no new deliberation or decision at a higher instance.
Lawyers of the companies involved celebrated the decision as a victory of the constitutional principle of brakes and counterweights. “The Constitution is clear in attributing to Congress control over foreign trade. No president can circumvent this by decree or emergency declaration without legal support,” said one of Liberty Justice Center’s legal representatives.
Sought to comment on the decision, representatives of former President Trump did not speak until the closure of the report. During his term, Trump adopted a series of unilateral measures regarding foreign trade, including rates against Chinese, European and Latin American products, on allegations of unfair competition or commercial imbalance.
The court decision will be monitored by international observers, especially by countries that were cited as targets of suspended tariffs. A position of the current US government is also awaited on the direction of commercial policy to be adopted, given the restrictions imposed by judicial decisions and the constitutional structure itself.
The Court’s analysis reinforces the role of the judiciary as a moderator in situations where the executive seeks to expand his powers beyond the limits established by current legislation. The outcome of the case may influence future attempts to impose tariffs based on similar criteria, either through administrative decisions or presidential decrees.
Com Reuters information