2 Major Trump Legal Fights Set to Converge
The Supreme Court may significantly complicate efforts to challenge Trump’s tariffs.
TroibNews 
In less than two weeks, two significant aspects of the Donald Trump legal saga will come together — the effort to dismantle Trump's tariffs and the Trump administration’s struggle to prevent judges from blocking its policies nationwide.
The Court of International Trade is scheduled to hold oral arguments on May 13 regarding one of the numerous lawsuits challenging the core of the Trump tariff regime. These lawsuits present strong legal arguments, asserting that the tariffs lack authorization under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which Trump has cited.
Central to the discussions is a motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction to suspend the tariffs, filed by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of V. O. S. Selections, a New York-based alcohol importer and distributor, along with four other small businesses claiming that the tariffs threaten their viability.
There’s an additional twist: Two days later, the Supreme Court will deliberate on whether to limit judges' powers to check the administration through such injunctions. The justices are set to hear oral arguments concerning the Trump administration’s request to overturn a series of nationwide injunctions that are currently blocking Trump’s executive order aimed at eliminating birthright citizenship.
Trump and his advisers, including Stephen Miller, have expressed frustration at the capacity of a single lower court judge to impede the president’s agenda on a national scale. The administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to "prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable," making the court's ruling on this issue closely scrutinized by lawyers nationwide, including those engaged in the tariff cases.
Should the Supreme Court choose to abolish nationwide injunctions, this may present a significant obstacle to tariff opponents. The tariffs have disrupted the global economy and become one of Trump's substantial political challenges in his initial months in office. Various outcomes are on the table.
At least outwardly, some attorneys involved in the tariff cases are maintaining a degree of confidence.
“This is an issue where it would be impractical for the Supreme Court to apply tariffs to half the states, but not the other half,” noted Oregon state attorney general Dan Rayfield in a statement. He, along with Democratic attorneys general from 11 other states, has initiated their own challenge against the tariffs in the Court of International Trade. “This isn’t a concern,” he added.
While Rayfield could be right about practical implications, the ultimate outcome of the litigation remains uncertain, and other attorneys express more caution.
“Obviously, if they were to find that nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional or somehow not allowed, that would be bad for our lawsuit,” an attorney in a separate tariff case explained, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing legal strategies.
Currently, there are at least seven active lawsuits challenging Trump's tariffs under IEEPA nationwide, with plaintiffs retaining the right to seek injunctions that could extend nationwide.
As it stands, any U.S. court could theoretically issue a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA. Such an order would likely face swift appeal from the administration, but in the interim, it could alleviate the significant economic strain expected if Trump fully implements all threatened tariffs.
The Supreme Court has significant discretion in addressing the injunction issue within the birthright citizenship context, yet the Trump administration's stance is clear: all nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional, as the government asserts they "exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II." The administration has urged justices to “declare that enough is enough” and rule that lower courts can only issue injunctions applicable to the specific parties involved in cases before them.
This ruling would lead to a more fragmented and chaotic implementation of tariffs as well as litigation surrounding them. Some businesses could benefit from exemption from tariffs while others would not.
If the Supreme Court adopts the Trump administration’s perspective, every importer seeking to challenge the legality of the tariffs might have to secure a lawyer to represent them in court. Larger companies with more financial resources would generally be better positioned than small businesses lacking such means.
Echoing this concern, the attorney I spoke with noted, “It seems like you would want to have a consistent policy on whether tariffs were enjoined because you would basically be giving a huge competitive advantage to the litigants — enjoining tariffs against them but having tariffs against their competitors. That would be a little bit strange.”
Critics of nationwide injunctions who consider them unconstitutional sometimes cite alternative mechanisms lawyers can pursue to seek broad relief that effectively applies nationwide. However, it remains unclear whether those mechanisms would serve as adequate substitutes — or if they would even be available — in tariff cases.
For example, plaintiffs can file claims under the Administrative Procedures Act to “set aside” unlawful agency actions, but this law may not apply in tariff litigation, as the Supreme Court has ruled that the APA does not cover actions taken by the president directly.
Plaintiffs may also consider pursuing class action lawsuits, but that endeavor presents its own set of challenges. The lawyer I consulted expressed skepticism about whether a class action would suffice as an alternative to a nationwide injunction. “At least in this case, it would be problematic because it’d be hard to move quickly and also try to certify a class,” they indicated.
Moreover, in situations where immediate relief is necessary — such as when government action threatens to rapidly harm a small business — “adding the step of certifying a class is just going to either delay that or not be done until after you get the injunction anyway.”
The forthcoming argument in the Court of International Trade will be closely monitored by attorneys involved in all pending tariff cases, and it may offer a particularly promising forum in the short term for those seeking a ruling to declare the IEEPA tariffs invalid nationwide.
The chief judge of the court has assigned the case brought by the Democratic attorneys general to the same three-judge panel handling the V. O. S. litigation. In a potentially notable move, the judges invited the states to contribute their views on the pending motion in the V. O. S. case ahead of the argument, suggesting they are taking the cases seriously and recognize the broad implications involved.
In the meantime, the challenges are receiving support from unexpected quarters. “It’s a very good faith argument. I believe it should be sustained,” stated Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s first-term U.S. trade representative, during a Council on Foreign Relations event. Numerous prominent conservatives — including Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and judge Michael McConnell — have also filed amicus briefs in favor of the plaintiffs nationwide.
The Trump administration has been attempting to transfer cases contesting the tariffs in other courts to the Court of International Trade, arguing that this court possesses exclusive jurisdiction over tariff challenges and has successfully made this case in prior instances.
This strategy may prove advantageous for challengers aiming for the tariffs to be invalidated nationwide. This is because one of the strongest arguments against nationwide injunctions is that they can lead to inconsistent rulings by lower courts across various jurisdictions. However, this concern holds less weight when a single court is tasked by Congress with interpreting the relevant laws.
The Supreme Court is anticipated to deliver its decision in the birthright citizenship case this summer, though it's uncertain how quickly the Court of International Trade will issue a ruling in the V. O. S. litigation. This scenario could create a complex situation for the judges involved, who may simultaneously need to decide on issuing a nationwide injunction while the Supreme Court deliberates on the very availability of such a remedy.
It's unpredictable how the justices will address the matter. In the narrowest resolution, the Supreme Court might issue a ruling relevant only to the nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases, potentially postponing the question of their applicability in other contexts.
Such an outcome would benefit plaintiffs in tariff cases, but its likelihood remains uncertain. A decision of that nature may not appeal to the justices — particularly Republican appointees — due to the intense political controversy surrounding the nationwide injunctions that have blocked numerous Trump executive actions early in his presidency.
Alternatively, the court could uphold the use of nationwide injunctions. However, there are also several intermediate options available. For example, a majority might choose to increase the threshold for issuing nationwide injunctions, perhaps requiring lower courts to demonstrate a violation of established law before endorsing such orders. A majority could also limit the geographic reach of injunctions, possibly confining them to the district or circuit in which they arise.
Both disputes regarding tariffs and nationwide injunctions hold the potential to be among the most significant matters of Trump’s second term, and they are poised to intersect. The outcomes may significantly influence the future of the American economy — and, by extension, Trump’s presidency.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
The Court of International Trade is scheduled to hold oral arguments on May 13 regarding one of the numerous lawsuits challenging the core of the Trump tariff regime. These lawsuits present strong legal arguments, asserting that the tariffs lack authorization under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which Trump has cited.
Central to the discussions is a motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction to suspend the tariffs, filed by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of V. O. S. Selections, a New York-based alcohol importer and distributor, along with four other small businesses claiming that the tariffs threaten their viability.
There’s an additional twist: Two days later, the Supreme Court will deliberate on whether to limit judges' powers to check the administration through such injunctions. The justices are set to hear oral arguments concerning the Trump administration’s request to overturn a series of nationwide injunctions that are currently blocking Trump’s executive order aimed at eliminating birthright citizenship.
Trump and his advisers, including Stephen Miller, have expressed frustration at the capacity of a single lower court judge to impede the president’s agenda on a national scale. The administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to "prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable," making the court's ruling on this issue closely scrutinized by lawyers nationwide, including those engaged in the tariff cases.
Should the Supreme Court choose to abolish nationwide injunctions, this may present a significant obstacle to tariff opponents. The tariffs have disrupted the global economy and become one of Trump's substantial political challenges in his initial months in office. Various outcomes are on the table.
At least outwardly, some attorneys involved in the tariff cases are maintaining a degree of confidence.
“This is an issue where it would be impractical for the Supreme Court to apply tariffs to half the states, but not the other half,” noted Oregon state attorney general Dan Rayfield in a statement. He, along with Democratic attorneys general from 11 other states, has initiated their own challenge against the tariffs in the Court of International Trade. “This isn’t a concern,” he added.
While Rayfield could be right about practical implications, the ultimate outcome of the litigation remains uncertain, and other attorneys express more caution.
“Obviously, if they were to find that nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional or somehow not allowed, that would be bad for our lawsuit,” an attorney in a separate tariff case explained, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing legal strategies.
Currently, there are at least seven active lawsuits challenging Trump's tariffs under IEEPA nationwide, with plaintiffs retaining the right to seek injunctions that could extend nationwide.
As it stands, any U.S. court could theoretically issue a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA. Such an order would likely face swift appeal from the administration, but in the interim, it could alleviate the significant economic strain expected if Trump fully implements all threatened tariffs.
The Supreme Court has significant discretion in addressing the injunction issue within the birthright citizenship context, yet the Trump administration's stance is clear: all nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional, as the government asserts they "exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II." The administration has urged justices to “declare that enough is enough” and rule that lower courts can only issue injunctions applicable to the specific parties involved in cases before them.
This ruling would lead to a more fragmented and chaotic implementation of tariffs as well as litigation surrounding them. Some businesses could benefit from exemption from tariffs while others would not.
If the Supreme Court adopts the Trump administration’s perspective, every importer seeking to challenge the legality of the tariffs might have to secure a lawyer to represent them in court. Larger companies with more financial resources would generally be better positioned than small businesses lacking such means.
Echoing this concern, the attorney I spoke with noted, “It seems like you would want to have a consistent policy on whether tariffs were enjoined because you would basically be giving a huge competitive advantage to the litigants — enjoining tariffs against them but having tariffs against their competitors. That would be a little bit strange.”
Critics of nationwide injunctions who consider them unconstitutional sometimes cite alternative mechanisms lawyers can pursue to seek broad relief that effectively applies nationwide. However, it remains unclear whether those mechanisms would serve as adequate substitutes — or if they would even be available — in tariff cases.
For example, plaintiffs can file claims under the Administrative Procedures Act to “set aside” unlawful agency actions, but this law may not apply in tariff litigation, as the Supreme Court has ruled that the APA does not cover actions taken by the president directly.
Plaintiffs may also consider pursuing class action lawsuits, but that endeavor presents its own set of challenges. The lawyer I consulted expressed skepticism about whether a class action would suffice as an alternative to a nationwide injunction. “At least in this case, it would be problematic because it’d be hard to move quickly and also try to certify a class,” they indicated.
Moreover, in situations where immediate relief is necessary — such as when government action threatens to rapidly harm a small business — “adding the step of certifying a class is just going to either delay that or not be done until after you get the injunction anyway.”
The forthcoming argument in the Court of International Trade will be closely monitored by attorneys involved in all pending tariff cases, and it may offer a particularly promising forum in the short term for those seeking a ruling to declare the IEEPA tariffs invalid nationwide.
The chief judge of the court has assigned the case brought by the Democratic attorneys general to the same three-judge panel handling the V. O. S. litigation. In a potentially notable move, the judges invited the states to contribute their views on the pending motion in the V. O. S. case ahead of the argument, suggesting they are taking the cases seriously and recognize the broad implications involved.
In the meantime, the challenges are receiving support from unexpected quarters. “It’s a very good faith argument. I believe it should be sustained,” stated Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s first-term U.S. trade representative, during a Council on Foreign Relations event. Numerous prominent conservatives — including Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and judge Michael McConnell — have also filed amicus briefs in favor of the plaintiffs nationwide.
The Trump administration has been attempting to transfer cases contesting the tariffs in other courts to the Court of International Trade, arguing that this court possesses exclusive jurisdiction over tariff challenges and has successfully made this case in prior instances.
This strategy may prove advantageous for challengers aiming for the tariffs to be invalidated nationwide. This is because one of the strongest arguments against nationwide injunctions is that they can lead to inconsistent rulings by lower courts across various jurisdictions. However, this concern holds less weight when a single court is tasked by Congress with interpreting the relevant laws.
The Supreme Court is anticipated to deliver its decision in the birthright citizenship case this summer, though it's uncertain how quickly the Court of International Trade will issue a ruling in the V. O. S. litigation. This scenario could create a complex situation for the judges involved, who may simultaneously need to decide on issuing a nationwide injunction while the Supreme Court deliberates on the very availability of such a remedy.
It's unpredictable how the justices will address the matter. In the narrowest resolution, the Supreme Court might issue a ruling relevant only to the nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases, potentially postponing the question of their applicability in other contexts.
Such an outcome would benefit plaintiffs in tariff cases, but its likelihood remains uncertain. A decision of that nature may not appeal to the justices — particularly Republican appointees — due to the intense political controversy surrounding the nationwide injunctions that have blocked numerous Trump executive actions early in his presidency.
Alternatively, the court could uphold the use of nationwide injunctions. However, there are also several intermediate options available. For example, a majority might choose to increase the threshold for issuing nationwide injunctions, perhaps requiring lower courts to demonstrate a violation of established law before endorsing such orders. A majority could also limit the geographic reach of injunctions, possibly confining them to the district or circuit in which they arise.
Both disputes regarding tariffs and nationwide injunctions hold the potential to be among the most significant matters of Trump’s second term, and they are poised to intersect. The outcomes may significantly influence the future of the American economy — and, by extension, Trump’s presidency.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
