According to reports by the Associated Press and Reuters on May 28 local time, the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked the tariff policy announced by former U.S. President Donald Trump on "Liberation Day," April 2, and ruled that Trump's tariff policy was "ultra vires."

Reportedly, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York stated that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to regulate trade with other countries, and the emergency powers claimed by the President to protect the U.S. economy cannot override these powers.

Public information shows that the main responsibility of the U.S. Court of International Trade is to hear lawsuits related to international trade and exercise jurisdiction over relevant administrative decisions. In 2020, 3,600 American companies also requested the Trump administration to suspend tariff settlements for some Chinese products entering the U.S., and eventually won the case.

In addition, Trump's tariff policies are currently facing at least seven lawsuits. The lawsuit just ruled on by the U.S. Court of International Trade was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a non-profit, non-partisan litigation organization, on behalf of five small American businesses severely impacted by Trump's tariff policies. Another six lawsuits were filed by local governments in 13 U.S. states and other small business associations.

Former President Trump has not yet responded immediately to the relevant news. However, media estimates suggest that the Trump administration will appeal against this ruling because tariff policies are at the core of Trump's economic policies.

Previously, on April 2, Trump signed an executive order to promulgate the so-called "reciprocal tariff" (commonly known as the "Liberation Day Tariff" in the U.S.) and stated that the long-standing trade deficit was "unfair." The Trump administration had imposed additional tariffs on products from China, Canada, Mexico, and others under various pretexts. However, the court's decision dealt a heavy blow to Trump's tariff policies.

In court, plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Schwab argued that although Trump claimed the legal basis for his "reciprocal tariff" policy was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA), tariffs are not among the means authorized for the President under IEPPA. Even if using tariffs based on this premise, the trade deficit does not meet the triggering condition of "extraordinary and unusual threat" specified in the law - the United States has had a trade deficit with other countries for 49 consecutive years.

The plaintiff's lawyer also claimed that Trump's imposition of tariffs marked an unprecedented illegal expansion of executive power, which was not the original intent of Congress when it passed the IEPPA law.

The U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing the defendant argued that Congress authorized the President to handle diplomatic affairs and regulate trade, including levying tariffs since 1794. However, conservative Judge Restani refuted the above statement, arguing that the long-standing situation of the trade deficit would not suddenly reach a precipitous decline, ultimately triggering the government's invocation of a national emergency.

This article is an exclusive contribution by Observer Network and cannot be reprinted without permission.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7509666312667562531/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Please express your opinions by voting up or down below.