Cases
Simplified v. Trump, et al.
CASE SUMMARY
Representing Simplified, a Pensacola-based company owned by entrepreneur Emily Ley, NCLA challenges President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to require Americans to pay a heavy tariff on all products they import from China. President Trump imposed the tariff by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, this statute authorizes specific emergency actions like imposing sanctions or freezing assets to protect the United States from foreign threats. It does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. In its nearly 50-year history, no other president—including President Trump in his first term—has ever tried to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs. This lawsuit does not quibble with President Trump’s declaration of an opioid-related emergency, but it does take issue with his decision to impose tariffs in response, without legal authority to do so.
This China tariff is harmful to Simplified, a company that improves women’s lives by selling premium planners and other home management products. Simplified’s business depends on importing materials from China, and it already has paid substantial tariffs to purchase goods from China that are not available here. The “emergency” tariff will force it to make higher tariff payments, driving up its costs and thus prices for its customers, and reducing its profits.
Under art. 1, § 8 of the Constitution, Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking “emergency” authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs. His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of “vast economic and political significance” in a law without explicit congressional authorization. If the IEEPA were held to permit this executive order, then the statute would run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine because it lacks an “intelligible principle” to limit or guide the president’s discretion in imposing tariffs.
