In that suit we’ve previously mentioned, where the Federalist Society honcho is suing Trump (25-cv-464, USDC NDFL, before USDC Judge T. Kent Wetherell II), for wrecking his US-based paper notions businesses in Florida, by imposing 135% tariffs on his China sourced / imported stationary products… the Cato Institute has filed a brief this morning, explaining clearly that these silly Tangerine 2.0 tariff moves fall in the exclusive province of the Congress, not 1600 Penn., acting alone — under about 220-plus years of precedents.

Many of the Cato Institute’s other public views I may vehemently disagree with, but in this matter, the Institute is absolutely correct on the law, thus:

…The Constitution vests the power to impose tariffs solely in Congress, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, and the Cato Institute writes separately to provide historical context regarding IEEPA’s purposes and the original understanding of Congress’s constitutional authority to impose tariffs.

For over a century, Congress exercised that power directly and in exhaustive detail, even during times of war and economic crisis. When Congress has chosen to delegate limited authority to the Executive to vary tariffs, it has done so explicitly and with clear statutory language.

The government’s reliance on IEEPA as a source of unilateral tariff authority breaks with this tradition and misreads the statute. IEEPA contains no reference to “tariffs” or “duties,” and no President had cited it to impose tariffs in the nearly 50 years since its enactment — until now.

Congress knows how to grant tariff authority when it chooses to, as it did in the Tariff Act of 1922, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and the Trade Act of 1974. IEEPA, by contrast, was enacted to limit executive power, not to expand it. Courts should not credit interpretations of vague statutory text that, for the first time in decades, are “discovered” to confer vast economic powers on the President.

The government’s reading of IEEPA not only stretches the text beyond recognition, it also undermines the Framers’ designs for a separation of powers. Accepting the government’s theory would mean that Congress, through ambiguous text and legislative silence, can transfer sweeping legislative power to the President — a result the Supreme Court has warned against. “Courts expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 716 (2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)).

The Constitution, IEEPA’s text, and over two centuries of history point in the same direction: the tariff-setting power remains in the hands of Congress….

Do go read it all… and oh my goodness, are these strange times — how about those silly… Qataris!?

नमस्ते