A federal court this week dealt a setback to President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy, ruling that his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad “reciprocal” tariffs exceeds the authority Congress granted him. The lawsuit was brought by the Liberty Justice Center (LJC), a libertarian public-interest law firm whose past funders include two of Trump’s wealthiest backers, Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein.
From Boardrooms to Courtrooms: Small Businesses Challenge Tariff Edicts
In early 2025, the LJC filed suit on behalf of five small American companies—from a boutique wine importer to a fishing gear retailer—arguing that sudden “reciprocal” tariffs of up to 10% disrupted their operations and consumers’ access to vital goods. The plaintiffs contended that such sweeping, economy-wide levies required explicit Congressional approval, not merely a unilateral executive action under emergency‐powers legislation.
A Rare Bipartisan Convergence
Unusually, the Trump administration faced parallel legal pressure from a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that IEEPA was intended for targeted sanctions—against hostile regimes or terrorist organizations—not for general trade policy. The convergence of a libertarian–leaning public‐interest group and Democratic state officials highlights mounting concerns across the political spectrum about the stability and legality of Trump’s “trade war” approach.
Judges Rein in Executive Overreach
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed, finding that “the IEEPA does not delegate an unbounded tariff authority onto the President.” While preserving existing steel and aluminum tariffs enacted under other statutes, the court enjoined the administration’s plan to extend broad retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of imports. The decision prompted stocks to rally: futures for the S&P 500 and Dow Jones jumped on relief that the unpredictability of sudden tariff hikes may recede.
Libertarian Advocates Celebrate Legal Victory
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, praised the ruling as a win for “economic liberty” and the rule of law. “It affirms that the president must act within the bounds of statutes passed by Congress, protecting businesses and consumers from destabilizing, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” Schwab said. Victor Schwartz, owner of Vos Selections, lauded the outcome as a “win for small businesses across America—and the world for that matter.” Schwartz vowed to support the appeal process all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Trump’s Appeal and the Road Ahead
The White House immediately appealed, signaling a likely showdown in the U.S. Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court. In a statement, acting Trade Representative Katherine Tai defended the administration’s strategy: “Our tariff measures are necessary to counter unfair trade practices and protect American workers.” Yet legal experts caution that the high court may curtail the president’s unilateral trade powers, reinforcing the constitutional principle that only Congress may levy broad taxes and duties.
Mercer, Uihlein and the Money Behind the Lawsuit
The Liberty Justice Center is no stranger to high-stakes litigation against federal authority. Its past donors, hedge-fund magnate Robert Mercer and shipping-supply heir Richard Uihlein, have poured millions into libertarian causes, including efforts to challenge regulations on everything from healthcare to environmental protections. Both Mercer and Uihlein were significant financial supporters of Trump’s presidential campaigns, making the LJC’s lawsuit against his tariff agenda an ironic twist in the intertwining of money, politics, and the courts.
Economic Fallout: Businesses and Investors Breathe Easier
Since Trump first threatened sweeping tariffs on Chinese-made goods in 2018, U.S. stock markets have undergone roller-coaster swings, with volatility surging whenever new levies were announced. The latest ruling removes a layer of uncertainty for import-reliant small businesses—and for industries such as manufacturing, retail, and agriculture that depend on global supply chains. Wall Street analysts predict that if the administration cannot reinstate its broad tariff plans, market confidence will further firm.
Political Implications: Trade as a Campaign Issue
Tariffs have become a defining element of Trump’s “America First” brand, positioning him as a protector of domestic industries against perceived predatory practices. Yet the legal rebuke from a court—coupled with bipartisan opposition—may dampen that narrative. Democratic leaders have seized on the victory to argue for more measured, multilateral approaches to trade policy. Republicans skeptical of unrestrained executive power also praise the court’s check on presidential overreach.
Congressional Authority Reaffirmed
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental constitutional principle: taxation and trade policy are the province of Congress. The court’s decision underscores that, even in the face of national-security or economic emergencies, presidents cannot bypass legislative scrutiny for sweeping economic measures. Many lawmakers on Capitol Hill, from both parties, have privately expressed relief that the judiciary reaffirmed Congress’s central role in setting tariff policy.
Looking Ahead: The Trump Trade Doctrine in Limbo
As the appeal process unfolds, the fate of Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff plan remains uncertain. Should the Supreme Court decline to hear the case—or rule against the administration—future presidents would face stricter constraints on using emergency-powers statutes for trade policy. Conversely, a victory on appeal would embolden the executive branch to wield IEEPA more broadly. Either outcome will resonate far beyond the small businesses that first challenged the policy, shaping U.S. trade strategy and executive authority for years to come.
READ MORE:Donald Trump’s Stark Warning to Vladimir Putin: “You’re Playing with Fire”
