section_path: Impacts/United States/Political and legal challenges
section_name: Political and legal challenges
paragraph_text: Political and legal challenges
  
  Senators Chuck Grassley and Maria Cantwell introduced the bipartisan Trade Review Act of 2025, proposing amendments to the law aimed at separation of powers and closing legal loopholes. However, the law has not yet reached a consensus. Senate Majority Leader John Thune referred dismissively, "I don't think that has a future." Senator Elizabeth Warren, calling it "a moment of truth for Republicans" to overturn the emergency declaration that President Trump used to justify tariffs impacting the families, businesses, and farmers they represent. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Don Bacon, who stated, "The Constitution clearly gives the authority for taxes and tariffs to Congress. Our Founders created checks and balances for a reason," urging Congress to reclaim its responsibility.
  
  Lawmakers were also frustrated with how the world learned of Trump's decisions—through a social media platform operated by Trump's company, instead of through federal administration officials. Democratic Senator Adam Schiff called on Congress to investigate whether Trump had engaged in suspicious insider trading or market manipulation when he abruptly announced and paused the tariffs. The media described the US economy, the government's handling of the jobs and retirement savings of millions of Americans, and the US's standing in global security, as having encountered an unprecedented crisis of trust because of the Trump administration's unrestrained behavior.
  
  Companies, business groups, trade associations, lawyers at home and abroad, and foreign governments filed formal complaints challenging the legality of the White House tariff measures. On April 16, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom sued Trump over tariffs in an aggressive move to end the president's stranglehold on global commerce (3:25-cv-03372). Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont also sued Trump Administration over tariffs on April 23 (1:25-cv-00077).
  
  On April 14, 2025, a public interest law firm, Liberty Justice Center, filed suit against the Trump administration over Executive Order 14257 on behalf of a group of five small businesses in the case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (1:25-cv-00066). The firm requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which was denied by the United States Court of International Trade. The Court set a briefing schedule and hearing to rule on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the "Liberation Day" tariffs. The government's response brief was filed on April 29 and the plaintiff's reply is due on May 6, 2025. The hearing is scheduled for May 13, 2025. James Fanelli reported with The Wall Street Journal that, "Other challenges have been filed in the court and in federal district courts around the country, but the V.O.S. case is front and center so far."
  
  On May 28, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the tariffs Trump imposed globally overstepped presidential powers, and gave the administration a deadline of 10 days to end them. The decision does not affect tariffs imposed by other American authorities such as those on steel, aluminum and cars, and does not block potential tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and other products, either.
  
  A closely related area of legal scrutiny arises from the broader constitutional and statutory questions surrounding the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a basis for imposing tariffs. While the specific circumstances and plaintiffs differ across Webber v. Trump, Princess Awesome & Stonemaier Games v. Customs, Learning Resources v. Trump, Oregon v. Trump, and Emily Ley Paper Inc. v. Trump, these cases collectively raise common concerns about the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA and its alignment with constitutional principles. Central to each case is the argument that the imposition of tariffs, in the absence of clear congressional authorization, may constitute an overextension of executive power into areas that are traditionally reserved for the legislative branch, particularly in the regulation of commerce and the imposition of tariffs.
  
  A recurring issue in these challenges is the conflict between statutory interpretation and constitutional framework. Plaintiffs consistently argue that IEEPA was not intended to authorize broad-based trade measures without a defined national emergency and that its application in this context raises concerns regarding the separation of powers. Several complaints also invoke the nondelegation doctrine, asserting that the statute, as applied, grants the executive branch an excessively broad scope of discretion without adequate guiding principles. In addition to constitutional claims, the cases highlight the significant economic consequences for states, businesses, and individuals, emphasizing the potential for such executive actions to set a precedent for expansive policymaking beyond the original purpose of emergency economic legislation.