Legal Challenges to IEEPA Tariffs Stack Up

As of April 25, 2025, seven lawsuits have been filed challenging President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute traditionally used for targeted economic sanctions.  

Peter Harrell, Non-Resident Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, attorney, and host of the Security Economics Podcast, points out in a LinkedIn post that three lawsuits are in the Court of International Trade (CIT), a Customs venue, and the Government is seeking to have all cases resolved by the CIT. "That presumes that IEEPA is a customs statute, which the plaintiffs challenge," he notes.

Bloomberg notes "steering the current cases on the same path will likely benefit the administration because they, too, would go through the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has historically been deferential to the authority of presidents to levy tariffs."

Arguments

1. Congressional Authority Over Tariffs: Plaintiffs argue that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to impose tariffs. They contend that Trump’s use of IEEPA to levy tariffs constitutes an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power. 

2. IEEPA’s Scope: The lawsuits assert that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs. Historically, IEEPA has been employed to freeze assets and restrict financial transactions during national emergencies, not to adjust tariff rates.  

3. Major Questions Doctrine: Under this legal principle, significant economic decisions require clear congressional authorization. Plaintiffs argue that the sweeping tariffs, affecting a vast array of imports, represent a major economic action lacking explicit legislative endorsement. 

4. Nondelegation Doctrine: Some challenges claim that if IEEPA is interpreted to permit such broad tariff authority, it would constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. 

5. Lack of a Genuine National Emergency: Critics argue that the cited national emergencies, such as trade deficits or drug trafficking, do not meet the statutory criteria of “unusual and extraordinary threats,” rendering the invocation of IEEPA improper. 

Notable Lawsuits

• Multistate Coalition: Attorneys general from twelve states, including New York, Arizona, and Oregon, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade. They contend that the tariffs are unlawful and have caused economic harm to their states. 

• California’s Legal Action: Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a separate lawsuit, asserting that the tariffs disproportionately affect California’s economy and exceed presidential authority under IEEPA. 

• Small Business Challenges: The Liberty Justice Center represents five small businesses in a lawsuit claiming that the tariffs have inflicted significant financial harm and were imposed without proper legal authority. 

• Simplified’s Lawsuit: Emily Ley, CEO of the stationery company Simplified, filed a lawsuit with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, arguing that the tariffs threaten her business’s viability and were enacted without congressional consent. 

Where to?

On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade denied a temporary restraining order sought by small businesses, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect while litigation proceeds. 

A hearing on a preliminary injunction is scheduled for May 6, 2025. Legal experts anticipate that these cases may ultimately reach the Supreme Court, given the significant constitutional questions involved. 

"Even if these suits succeed," Harrell notes, "Trump will likely be able, over time, to reimpose many tariffs under other statutes. But those statutes will require an orderly and predictable process, and would likely put important boundaries on rates."