[Ilya Somin] Defending the Court of International Trade Ruling Against Trump's Tariffs—A Reply to Estreicher and Babbitt

It emphasized that the Nixon tariffs were linked to the preexisting tariff schedule set by Congress, and that "[t]he declaration of a national emergency is not a talisman enabling the President to rewrite the tariff schedules." But there are also multiple additional reasons to rule against the tariffs, including 1) IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs at all, 2) trade deficits are not an "emergency" or an "unusual and extraordinary threat" 3) deficit-related tariffs are now governed by the Trade Act of 1974 (a point noted by the CIT), not IEEPA, 4) the major questions doctrine, and 5) constitutional avoidance (relied on by both CIT and Judge Contreras). UPDATE: EB also criticize the part of the CIT decision striking down Trump's fentanyl-related IEEPA tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China, which held that the tariffs in question do not actually "deal with" the fentanyl problem (IEEPA states that the statute can only be used to "deal with" the "unusual and extraordinary threat" it is invoked to address).

Author: Ilya Somin

---