Key Takeaways
• New Civil Liberties Alliance Sues Trump Over Tariffs: The nonprofit law firm has challenged the legality of tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing they violate constitutional authority.
• Economic Impact: Tariffs are poised to drive up prices and are causing economic uncertainty, recession fears and worry that end-buyers will pull back significantly on promotional products purchasing.
• Legal Debate on Presidential Powers: Experts question the constitutionality of Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, though the administration says it’s on solid legal ground.
UPDATE 6:30 Eastern April 9, 2025
This article originally appeared April 7. It was updated to show that President Donald Trump moved forward with adding additional tariffs of 50% on China.
A nonprofit conservative-leaning law firm has sued President Donald Trump over tariffs he’s placed on China while some constitutional experts are raising questions over the legality of the White House’s levies. Still, so far, America’s 47th president shows no signs of dialing back the duties.
To the contrary: On Wednesday, April 9, Trump implemented an additional 50% tariff rate on imports from China in response to export curbs and additional tariffs of 34% that China placed on U.S. imports in response to the levies America’s president slapped China with last week.
Since the start of 2025, Trump has now put 104% in additional tariff rates on imports from China. Those levies come on top of the 7.5% to 25% duties Trump placed on China-made goods during his first term, as well as normal duty rates for an imported article and applicable antidumping and countervailing duties, legal analysts said. Trump has also eliminated the de minimis exemption importing rule as it pertains to China and Hong Kong.
China didn’t take the latest tranche of Trump tariffs lying down. Beijing responded by increasing the aforementioned 34% tariffs on U.S. imports to 84%, effective April 10. China’s foreign ministry said that Beijing will continue to take “resolute and forceful” measures to protect its interests, but indicated it was open to talks. “If the U.S. genuinely wants to resolve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should show an attitude of equality, respect and mutual benefit,” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian said.
Trump’s administration countered that view. “It’s unfortunate that the Chinese actually don’t want to come and negotiate, because they are the worst offenders in the international trading system,” said U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “They have the most imbalanced economy in the history of the modern world, and I can tell you that this escalation is a loser for them.”
The new tariffs come after some reports indicated early April 7 that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on the baseline 10% tariff on virtually all imports and higher so-called reciprocal tariffs he placed on upward of 90 nations around the globe last week. Those tariffs officially took effect April 9, too. The White House kiboshed the “pause” reports, calling them “fake news,” which sent markets tumbling again following a brief revival. S&P 500 futures were falling early April 9.
The tariffs on China and other nations have the promotional products industry and sectors across the economy reeling as predictions of rampant inflation and a higher likelihood of recession swirl.
In promo in particular, the tariffs themselves will, if left in place, significantly increase promo product pricing, among other impacts related to sourcing. Indeed, some suppliers are already increasing prices.
Still, it’s the ripple effects of the tariffs that really stand to hurt promo – how they’re causing uncertainty in the broader marketplace, triggering widespread worries among business leaders. The phenomenon has already led some end-buyers to pull back on swag spending, as evidenced by developments like RFPs that had been out being revoked, ASI Media has learned.
“If these tariffs stick, I expect the promo industry to see a demand slowdown, much higher pricing, further supply chain disruption and a major strain on small companies,” a top executive at a leading supplier who wished to remain anonymous told ASI Media. “The industry will get through it, but not without some collateral damage.”
NCLA Files a Lawsuit
There are some working to ensure the tariffs don’t stick – regardless of what Trump may do.
Those include the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit conservative-leaning law firm that has sued Trump, members of his administration, the Department of Homeland Security and others over tariffs placed on China in 2025.
NCLA brought the suit on behalf of Emily Ley, owner of Simplified, a Pensacola, FL-based retailer of notebooks, journals, recipe binders and planners. NCLA is asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to declare tariffs Trump placed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as unlawful – and to vacate them and to enjoin federal authorities from any enforcement of the levies.
“By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the (IEEPA) statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress’s right to control tariffs and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel, NCLA
While the case is before a Trump-appointed judge and its outcome uncertain, NCLA is adamant that the president lacks the power to invoke IEEPA to implement tariffs. The firm said the statute authorizes the president to take specific emergency actions, like imposing sanctions or freezing assets, to protect the United States from foreign threats. However, it does not authorize Trump or any president to impose tariffs. In its nearly 50-year history, no other president – including Trump in his first term – has ever tried to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs.
“By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the (IEEPA) statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress’s right to control tariffs and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers,” said Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel, NCLA.
NCLA said the China tariffs harm Simplified, which – like many promo businesses – relies on importing products/materials from China. Trump’s tariffs will force Ley to make higher tariff payments, driving up Simplified’s costs and prices for its customers, the law firm said.
“The constitutional power ‘to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises’ and ‘to regulate commerce with foreign Nations’ belongs to Congress,” said John Vecchione, an NCLA senior litigation counsel. “The administration’s actions followed none of these constitutional commands, and the statute it cites does not even use the word ‘tariff’ or ‘tax.’ This unlawful ‘impost’ must fall.”
NCLA is hoping the case will be adjudicated before the end of the year.
Meanwhile, Politico reported that more legal challenges to tariffs could be on the way.
The media outlet stated that lawyers and representatives for a number of business groups are considering filing lawsuits against the baseline and reciprocal tariffs that Trump unveiled April 3, but there’s widespread hesitancy to do so. Attorneys and business leaders fear backlash from the administration and are grappling with uncertainty, thinking the president could perhaps soon remove or reduce the tariffs.
Still, a senior executive at a trade association told Politico: “All options are being considered.”
Legality of Tariffs Called Into Question
Trump has argued that he’s on solid legal ground in leveraging IEEPA to impose tariffs on China, given that nation’s alleged role in supplying fentanyl and its related chemicals to the United States, which the White House says constitutes a national emergency. The administration has also called the U.S. trade deficit an emergency that empowers Trump to use the IEEPA as vehicle for inking new tariffs into law.
But some legal experts question the thinking.
“IEEPA has a long list of things that the president can do and nowhere does it say ‘tariffs,’” Liza Goitein, senior director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, told Politico. “There is absolutely a basis on which to challenge the use of IEEPA for tariffs based on the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence … there’s some likelihood of success on this lawsuit on that grounds.”
Paul Sracic, a professor of politics and international relations at Youngstown State University and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, penned an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in which he stated that “Mr. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs stretch IEEPA beyond its intended scope, sidestepping Congress’s constitutional authority over trade and taxation. This undermines the separation of powers and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive overreach.”
Sracic said federal authorities enacted IEEPA in 1977. It allows the president what he described as “broad authority” to regulate international economic transactions when a national emergency has been declared.
“The law’s purpose was to address genuine crises – like foreign aggression or economic sabotage – not to serve as a catch-all to implement domestic policy preferences,” Sracic said. “Mr. Trump’s tariffs aren’t regulatory tweaks; they are transformative economic policies with far-reaching consequences. IEEPA’s text offers no clear mandate for such sweeping actions.”
Under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes, NCLA noted. “The president cannot bypass those statutes by invoking ‘emergency’ authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs,” the law firm stated in further explaining its lawsuit against Trump over tariffs.
NCLA stated that Trump’s attempt to use the IEEPA violates the law as written and invites the application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of “vast economic and political significance” in a law without explicit congressional authorization.
“If the IEEPA were held to permit this executive order, then the statute would run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine because it lacks an ‘intelligible principle’ to limit or guide the president’s discretion in imposing tariffs,” NCLA stated.
In more laymen’s terms, Vecchione told Politico: “If this was Red Dawn and the enemy was coming across the border and the president invoked IEEPA, he still can’t put in tariffs. It’s not what it’s for.”
Whether the NCLA case or another to be filed, attorneys may ultimately have to duke it out before the Supreme Court to settle the matter. Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs remain in play.
