Chamber of Commerce chooses lobbying over suing Trump concerning tariffs
The prominent business organization is worried that even if it effectively contests the tariffs established through an emergency law, those duties might be reinstated under a different one.
TroibNews 
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not currently planning to join the increasing number of lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s "Liberation Day" tariffs, according to two individuals familiar with the discussions who spoke to PMG on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the talks.
Rather than pursuing legal action, the influential trade association will concentrate on lobbying the Trump administration regarding the tariffs, the sources indicated.
Initially, the Chamber considered a lawsuit challenging Trump's invocation of a 1970s emergency law to implement the tariffs. However, the organization, which claims to represent millions of business owners, ultimately decided against this course of action, influenced by concerns that a successful lawsuit could prompt tariffs to be re-applied under a different statute, the sources reported.
This development comes amidst a surge of legal challenges from businesses contending that the president has overstepped his authority regarding tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. On Wednesday, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a lawsuit, cautioning that the state could suffer losses in the billions due to its trade-dependent industries.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta shared with PMG that he had engaged in “direct conversations” with several business leaders and trade organizations unhappy with Trump's tariffs prior to filing the lawsuit. He emphasized, “This is very specifically important to California,” highlighting the state’s position as the fifth-largest economy globally. “We wanted to move quickly and assertively.”
Recently, two conservative legal organizations — the Liberty Justice Center and the New Civil Liberties Alliance — have also initiated separate lawsuits.
In a statement to PMG, the Chamber expressed, “While we believe that tariffs under [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] are legally questionable, the president has other tools to impose similar tariffs that equally damage America’s Main Street Businesses. The only way to provide immediate relief is for the Administration to pull back on these harmful tariffs.”
Trump has relied on the emergency law to impose a flat 10 percent duty on various trading partners, alongside a 145 percent tariff on China and reciprocal tariffs on more than 60 other countries, before pausing those duties for 90 days. While the emergency law provides the president extensive powers to manage economic transactions during a crisis, it had never been previously employed to enforce tariffs, leaving its legality unverified in court.
The president has also utilized a different trade law from 1962, which he used during his first term, to apply new duties on automobiles, steel, and aluminum, arguing it is vital for national security to protect these industries. He has other options as well, including a trade law from 1974 that would let him impose tariffs for up to 150 days on countries with which the U.S. maintains a trade deficit.
“The Chamber consistently explores — and uses — every tool at our disposal to impact policy and regulatory outcomes, including litigation. Our current focus is getting immediate relief for small businesses from the tariffs,” the Chamber stated, noting the increasing number of calls from small businesses concerned about the tariffs’ repercussions in recent weeks.
Some legal scholars believe it is plausible for a judge to rule Trump’s application of the emergency law as illegal, potentially undermining the administration's efforts to impose historical levels of tariffs on foreign partners.
“There is absolutely a basis on which to challenge the use of [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] for tariffs based on the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence,” remarked Liza Goitein, senior director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy organization, in an interview earlier this month. “There’s some likelihood of success on this lawsuit on those grounds.”
However, legal proceedings could take months or longer to resolve unless the plaintiffs pursue a preliminary injunction to immediately halt Trump from collecting the tariffs.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative legal group that has filed a lawsuit against Trump’s application of the emergency law to enforce a 20 percent tariff on China, is not seeking an injunction, as such decisions could be appealed and prolong the case. Instead, one of the group’s attorneys indicated they are hopeful for a ruling by year’s end declaring Trump’s actions unlawful and unconstitutional.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
Rather than pursuing legal action, the influential trade association will concentrate on lobbying the Trump administration regarding the tariffs, the sources indicated.
Initially, the Chamber considered a lawsuit challenging Trump's invocation of a 1970s emergency law to implement the tariffs. However, the organization, which claims to represent millions of business owners, ultimately decided against this course of action, influenced by concerns that a successful lawsuit could prompt tariffs to be re-applied under a different statute, the sources reported.
This development comes amidst a surge of legal challenges from businesses contending that the president has overstepped his authority regarding tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. On Wednesday, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a lawsuit, cautioning that the state could suffer losses in the billions due to its trade-dependent industries.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta shared with PMG that he had engaged in “direct conversations” with several business leaders and trade organizations unhappy with Trump's tariffs prior to filing the lawsuit. He emphasized, “This is very specifically important to California,” highlighting the state’s position as the fifth-largest economy globally. “We wanted to move quickly and assertively.”
Recently, two conservative legal organizations — the Liberty Justice Center and the New Civil Liberties Alliance — have also initiated separate lawsuits.
In a statement to PMG, the Chamber expressed, “While we believe that tariffs under [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] are legally questionable, the president has other tools to impose similar tariffs that equally damage America’s Main Street Businesses. The only way to provide immediate relief is for the Administration to pull back on these harmful tariffs.”
Trump has relied on the emergency law to impose a flat 10 percent duty on various trading partners, alongside a 145 percent tariff on China and reciprocal tariffs on more than 60 other countries, before pausing those duties for 90 days. While the emergency law provides the president extensive powers to manage economic transactions during a crisis, it had never been previously employed to enforce tariffs, leaving its legality unverified in court.
The president has also utilized a different trade law from 1962, which he used during his first term, to apply new duties on automobiles, steel, and aluminum, arguing it is vital for national security to protect these industries. He has other options as well, including a trade law from 1974 that would let him impose tariffs for up to 150 days on countries with which the U.S. maintains a trade deficit.
“The Chamber consistently explores — and uses — every tool at our disposal to impact policy and regulatory outcomes, including litigation. Our current focus is getting immediate relief for small businesses from the tariffs,” the Chamber stated, noting the increasing number of calls from small businesses concerned about the tariffs’ repercussions in recent weeks.
Some legal scholars believe it is plausible for a judge to rule Trump’s application of the emergency law as illegal, potentially undermining the administration's efforts to impose historical levels of tariffs on foreign partners.
“There is absolutely a basis on which to challenge the use of [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] for tariffs based on the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence,” remarked Liza Goitein, senior director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy organization, in an interview earlier this month. “There’s some likelihood of success on this lawsuit on those grounds.”
However, legal proceedings could take months or longer to resolve unless the plaintiffs pursue a preliminary injunction to immediately halt Trump from collecting the tariffs.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative legal group that has filed a lawsuit against Trump’s application of the emergency law to enforce a 20 percent tariff on China, is not seeking an injunction, as such decisions could be appealed and prolong the case. Instead, one of the group’s attorneys indicated they are hopeful for a ruling by year’s end declaring Trump’s actions unlawful and unconstitutional.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
