Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, delves into the legal storm surrounding President Trump’s tariffs. He explains the unusual application of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which traditionally doesn't mention them. Padilla discusses ongoing lawsuits questioning this authority, exploring arguments about congressional approval, separation of powers, and the implications for future executive power. The conversation sheds light on a pivotal moment in U.S. trade law.
29:33
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
insights INSIGHT
Unprecedented Use of IEEPA for Tariffs
President Trump has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, an unprecedented application of the law.
IEEPA has never before been used to impose tariffs, and the word "tariff" doesn't appear in the statute.
insights INSIGHT
Major Questions Doctrine Challenges Tariff Use
The major questions doctrine requires clear congressional authorization for expansive executive action.
Applying this doctrine challenges the use of IEEPA for broad tariffs since the statute doesn't mention tariffs explicitly.
insights INSIGHT
Non-Delegation and Separation of Powers
Plaintiffs argue that the delegation of tariff power to the president under IEEPA violates the constitutional non-delegation doctrine.
The statute lacks an intelligible principle guiding the president's broad tariff authority, undermining separation of powers.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
John is joined by Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. They discuss the recent lawsuits challenging President Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is a 1977 statute traditionally used to freeze assets or impose sanctions in wartime or against adversaries. Until now, IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs, and does not mention the word "tariff." Multiple lawsuits challenging the tariffs have been filed in various courts, including several U.S. district courts and the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT, a court traditionally deferential to presidential authority over trade, is moving faster than other courts. It has already denied one preliminary injunction and scheduled initial arguments concerning standing and jurisdiction. The administration has moved to consolidate the challenges filed in district courts with those in the CIT. Plaintiffs range from state governments and Native American tribes to small businesses. The cases largely challenge the President’s authority to issue the tariffs on four main grounds: (1) the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; (2) the President must have clear congressional authorization to increase the tariffs under the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine; (3) the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine; and (4) the declared "emergencies" used to justify the tariffs—such as immigration or the trade deficit—are not genuine emergencies under the IEEPA. Even if the plaintiffs in these cases prevail, the administration could still reimpose tariffs under other delegated statutory authorities, although proceeding under those authorities will involve several procedural hurdles. Ultimately, Christopher believes that real change would require congressional action, which is unlikely in the short term, and that any rollback of tariffs may depend more on economic developments such as recession, stagflation or a collapse of the bond market than on court rulings.
Law, disrupted