Jeb Bladine: Oregon leads fast-moving tariffs lawsuit
Federal courts, usually a tortoise in the race for justice and resolution, can still move quickly and decisively, as the Trump Administration learned again this week.
Activation of new U.S. tariffs began in February and has continued relentlessly, with unnerving and globally distressing starts and stops. On April 23, 12 state attorneys general led by Oregon AG Dan Rayfield filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, asserting that Donald Trump exceeded presidential authority for tariff actions that required congressional approval.
It took the court just three weeks to hold a May 13 hearing, and on Wednesday the court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not, as claimed, allow the president to impose such tariffs unilaterally. Subject to appeal, the court froze all existing IEEPA tariffs and blocked tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico that the Administration justified with claims of drug and immigration offenses.
AG Rayfield’s statement included: “President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. They triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses and manufacturers … the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy. This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter.”
In response to the ruling, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency … the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”
Federal courts have expedited other lawsuits against the Trump Administration, including swift decisions on cases involving a freeze on grants to Harvard University, sweeping reductions in the federal workforce, birthright citizenship, transgender rights and diverse situations of government spending and operational disruptions, to name a few.
There are more cases proposed for expedited treatment related to immigration applications, the Administration targeting of law firms, plans for revocation of Chinese student visas and deportations to developing countries.
Americans — as they were in the November election — are split in response to many controversial actions of the Trump Administration. But there is growing consensus that even if aggressive tariff negotiations are warranted, the handling of 2025 tariff issues has been excessively damaging to consumers, U.S. and global economies, and our reputation and standing as world leaders.
These months of tariff actions produced high prices for consumers; high costs of subsidies to industries hurt by the tariffs; great uncertainty in global markets; a crisis of confidence among investors; retaliation tariffs; concerning shifts in trade alliances; supply chain disruptions; and worries over long-term trade wars.
Economists have warned of trade war consequences; business organizations have challenged, then ultimately sued over impulsive tariff actions. Now, led by Oregon’s AG, there is another rapid court response to Trump Administration activities.
States joining Oregon in the lawsuit include Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.
Jeb Bladine can be reached at jbladine@newsregister.com or 503-687-1223.
Comments