The Pacific Legal Foundation (major libertarian public interest law firm) has filed a case challenging Trump’s awful IEEPA tariffs, with the awesome name of Princess Awesome v. CBP. Their case is similar to the one filed earlier by Liberty Justice Center and myself.
I welcome PLF to the fight. They are a long-established public interest law firm that has won numerous cases, including before the Supreme Court [full disclosure: they are also my wife’s employer, though she is not one of the attorneys on this case].
Like us, PLF is filing in the US Court of International Trade, representing US businesses that import goods from the countries hit by Trump’s massive tariffs. Like us, they argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) doesn’t authorize tariffs at all, that the trade deficits that supposedly justify the “Liberation Day” tariffs are not an “unusual and extraordinary threat” (which IEEPA says must be present to allow use of the law), and that Trump administration’s position runs afoul of constitutional nondelegation rules. Their complaint, unlike ours, does not make use of the “major questions doctrine.” But I suspect they might raise it eventually.
I cover these and other reasons why the Trump IEEPA tariffs are illegal in more detail in my Lawfare article, “The Constitutional Case Against Trump’s Trade War.”
PLF’s clients are an interesting group, including Stonemaier, LLC, which produces the popular boardgame Wingspan. Also, Princess Awesome v. CBP is probably the greatest – and most awesome – case name ever!
As detailed in PLF’s complaint, Princess Awesome is “a Maryland limited liability company that makes children[‘s] and adult clothing with the intention that all individual human beings deserve to be seen as their true selves and honored for their own unique set of interests.” The clothes they make are produced abroad, in countries subject to the tariffs.
While our lawsuit is limited to the massive “Liberation Day” tariffs, PLF is also challenging earlier IEEPA tariffs imposed on China, supposedly justified by the threat of fentanyl smuggling.
There are also other lawsuits challenging some or all of the IEEPA tariffs, filed by twelve states led by Oregon (challenging all IEEPA tariffs, filed in the CITY), the state of California (ditto, but filed in federal district court), the New Civil Liberties Alliance (challenging tariffs against China on behalf of an importer, filed in district court), and one brought by members of the Blackfeet Nation Native American tribe (challenging tariffs against Canada, filed in district court). See links embedded in the previous sentence for my thoughts on these cases and how they relate to ours.
The post Pacific Legal Foundation Files Case Challenging Trump's IEEPA Tariffs appeared first on Reason.com.
