Shots Fired: First Legal Challenge to Presidential Authority to Impose Tariffs Filed in Florida

​Last week, Simplified, a Florida-based stationery company founded by Emily Ley, initiated a legal challenge against the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on Chinese imports. The lawsuit contends that the administration unlawfully bypassed required procedures when implementing a 20% tariff on Chinese goods, adversely affecting small businesses like Simplified that rely on these imports. ​

The core of Simplified's argument is that the tariffs were imposed without proper statutory authority, as the power to levy tariffs resides with Congress. The lawsuit asserts that the President's actions infringe upon the constitutional separation of powers by usurping legislative authority. ​

Congressional Authority and Delegated Powers:

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to impose tariffs and regulate commerce with foreign nations. Over time, Congress has delegated certain trade-related powers to the Executive Branch through various statutes, including:​

1. Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232): Allows the President to adjust imports, including imposing tariffs, if the Department of Commerce determines that specific imports threaten national security. ​

2. Trade Act of 1974 (Section 201): Permits the President to impose tariffs if the U.S. International Trade Commission finds that an import surge is causing or threatens to cause serious injury to domestic industries. 

3. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977: Grants the President authority to regulate economic transactions during declared national emergencies. Historically, this act has been used to impose sanctions or freeze assets to protect against foreign threats. ​

Are Tariffs an Emergency Power?

In early April 2025, President Trump invoked the IEEPA to declare a national emergency, citing issues such as trade imbalances and currency manipulation. Subsequently, a 10% tariff was imposed on all imports, with higher rates on countries with significant trade deficits, including a 20% tariff on Chinese goods. ​

This unprecedented use of the IEEPA to impose tariffs has led to legal challenges questioning the constitutionality of such actions. Critics argue that employing the IEEPA in this manner exceeds the intended scope of the act and encroaches upon Congress's exclusive power to regulate commerce and impose taxes. ​

Simplified’s lawsuit has emerged as a pivotal flashpoint in the ongoing debate over who truly holds the reins in shaping U.S. trade policy: Congress or the President. At its core, the case challenges the outer boundaries of executive power, asking whether longstanding emergency statutes like the IEEPA can be stretched to justify sweeping economic decisions traditionally reserved for the legislative branch.

As the courts weigh the arguments, the outcome could recalibrate the balance of power in Washington. A ruling in favor of Simplified may mark a historic reassertion of congressional control over trade, potentially curbing the use of emergency powers as a policy shortcut. Conversely, if the President’s actions are upheld, future administrations could be emboldened to invoke national emergencies to reshape economic policy without congressional approval.

While the judicial process is still unfolding, early signals suggest that courts may be inclined to scrutinize the use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs absent a clear and immediate foreign threat. The stakes are high, and the decision could redefine the legal limits of executive authority in the economic arena for decades to come.

©2025 East West General Counsel. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between East West General Counsel and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of East West General Counsel.