What’s Happening

On April 3, the first legal challenge to President Trump’s tariffs was filed in federal court. The plaintiff, a small paper company in northern Florida, is represented by the public interest law firm the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which focuses primarily on administrative state issues. The NCLA notably litigated the companion case to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), which overturned Chevron deference. 

​

Background

On February 1, President Trump issued Executive Order 14195, which declared a national emergency with respect to fentanyl shipments into the United States from Canada, Mexico, and China. That EO imposed a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, which took effect at 12:01 a.m. on February 4.

 

On March 3, President Trump modified the February 1 order, including by doubling the tariff rate on Chinese products from 10 percent to 20 percent. 

​

Although not challenged in the April 3 lawsuit, on April 2, President Trump issued Executive Order 14257, which declared a national emergency with respect to the United States’s annual trade in goods deficit. That order established a 10 percent “universal” tariff on all goods from all countries—with a few exceptions—beginning at 12:01 a.m. on April 5. Also pursuant to that order, imports from China are scheduled to be subject to an additional 34 percent “reciprocal tariff” beginning at 12:01 a.m. on April 9. 

​

These new orders bring the United States’s additional tariff rate on Chinese goods to 30 percent, set to increase to 54 percent on April 9. These tariffs are in addition to most other applicable duties on imported products, including Section 301 tariffs put in place by the first Trump administration and any AD/CVD duties. 

Separately on April 2, President Trump issued Executive Order 14256, suspending de minimis treatment for all goods entering the United States from China.

 

Legal Case

Emily Ley Paper, Inc., d.b.a. Simplified, is a small, woman-owned business in Pensacola, Florida, that sells premium planners and other organizational products. Simplified imports material from China between December and March each year and, as a result, will be required to pay “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in additional costs due to the new tariffs. These tariffs will “inflict[] severe competitive injury in the form of higher costs, competitive disadvantage, and lost profits,” according to the complaint.

​

Simplified v. Trump, et al. challenges President Trump’s recent tariffs on Chinese goods under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA)—specifically the cumulative 20 percent tariffs established by executive orders February 1 (EO 14195) and March 3 (EO 14228) that are linked to the national emergency on fentanyl shipments from China. 

 

The plaintiff advances four legal claims:

1. IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs, and therefore the President is in excess of his statutory authority. The complaint notes that while IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs since its enactment in 1977, it has been used extensively for other uses enumerated specifically in the law, such as sanctions. Plaintiff argues that the major questions doctrine requires the President to show that the statute “clearly” authorizes him to impose tariffs. 

2. Second, even if IEEPA does permit tariffs, plaintiff argues that they are still unlawful because IEEPA limits the President’s actions to those that are “necessary” to address the underlying emergency—in this case, opioid shipments entering the United States from China.

3. Even if IEEPA does permit the imposition of tariffs on goods from China, the tariffs are still unlawful because IEEPA violates the nondelegation doctrine by failing to include an intelligible principle constraining the President’s authority.

4. Finally, any resulting modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the executive orders are unlawful.