Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

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.

OUR CLIENT

Emily Ley, CEO, Simplified

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Zhonette Brown
General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel
Andrew Morris
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Brief of Amicus Curiae America First Legal Foundation in Support of Defendants' Motion to Transfer

April 16, 2025 | Read More

Defendants' Motion to Transfer and Memorandum in Support

April 14, 2025 | Read More

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

April 3, 2025 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Sues to Stop Trump Admin. from Imposing Emergency Tariffs That Congress Never Authorized

April 3, 2025 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional — we’re suing to end them

April 15, 2025

RELATED CASES
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • Aposhian v. Garland

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Guidance Abuse

    Agency guidance is easier to promulgate than formal rules and regulations, so agencies prefer to issue it. Such “guidance” supplies relatively informal indications of how an agency interprets rules and statutes. Although guidance is not permitted to bind Americans (unlike laws made by elected legislators), agencies treat guidance as binding and courts often fail to stop them.

    Case Active - January 7, 2019

    Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

    View Case
  • Howard and Karen Baldwin v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed - February 24, 2020

    Agencies: Internal Revenue Service

    View Case
  • Marcus Broadway v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: U.S. Sentencing Commission

    View Case
  • Thomas H. Buffington v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Department of Veterans Affairs

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.

+