A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade in New York heard arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit that aims to have President Donald Trump’s import tariffs abolished.

Liberty Justice Center, a Libertarian public interest law firm representing five U.S. small businesses, argued that Trump lacks the legal authority to impose the “Liberation Day” import levies he announced on April 2.

Attorney Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center urged the court to grant either a summary judgement in the plaintiffs’ favor – which would mean a win for the businesses and the tariffs essentially being rendered unenforceable without having to hold a trial – or a preliminary injunction that would prevent enforcement of the tariffs until at least such time as the case is adjudicated.

The panel did not issue a decision yet. The judges are hearing arguments in a separate case involving a similar tariff challenge on May 21. It wasn’t clear if the panel would make a decision in the Liberty Justice Center case before then or wait until after next week’s hearing. One judge is a Trump appointee (Timothy Reif), another was appointed by President Obama (Gary Katzmann) and a third by President Reagan (Jane Restani).

“We’re hoping the court will not wait until after the hearing next week but it’s possible it will,” Schwab told ASI Media. Schwab wouldn’t speculate on how the judges will rule but said the justices “seemed to be concerned about the president’s assertion that he has broad unilateral power to impose tariffs on any country he wants, at any rate, for any reason.”

Regardless of which way the panel rules, Schwab anticipates that there will be appeals, with the case potentially reaching the Supreme Court. “This case has the markings of one the Supreme Court could be interested in, as it involves the president asserting broad and vast power that affects everybody,” he said.

Opposing Views

On April 2, Trump announced a baseline tariff on imports of 10% and so-called reciprocal tariffs that levied higher nation-specific import duties on many countries based on what the administration said was tariffs and other trade barriers those countries have against the United States. Trump subsequently suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days for all nations but China. He escalated new tariff rates imposed on China in 2025 to 145%, but then his administration walked that back to 30% for at least 90 days just this week.

The Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal basis for implementing the tariffs. Attorneys for Trump argue that IEEPA authorizes the president to regulate importations, including the authority to impose tariffs, and that Congress has delegated the president such authority under particular circumstances, such as national emergencies – which Trump has said the United States’ trade deficit constitutes.

However, Liberty Justice Center argues that the president lacks the legal authority to place tariffs on countries around the globe without congressional approval. Trump doesn’t have the authority to invoke IEEPA for tariff implementation, not least of all because “the trade deficit is not a national emergency or extraordinary threat,” said Schwab. IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs specifically, plaintiff attorneys have said.

In all, Schwab told ASI Media, Liberty Justice Center has argued that there are at least six different grounds upon which the tariffs can be determined to be unlawful. If the court finds any one of those to hold water, then the tariffs must be struck down, Schwab said.

For instance, there are violations of constitutionally established separation of powers and there’s the major questions doctrine, a principle of statutory interpretation that holds that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to executive agencies absent sufficiently clear and explicit authorization. It functions as a canon to limit broad assertions of implied powers, effectively reinforcing the role of legislative power. Schwab said the principle should apply when the president exercises powers reserved for Congress, like broad imposition of tariffs.

According to the Courthouse News Service, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton told the three-judge panel that the president’s tariffs are built on solid legal ground. Trump has the authority to conclude that the overall effect of trade deficits has reached a national emergency level. There are ample risks to national security, due to the U.S.’s reliance on imports, which has made the supply chain susceptible to disruption, Hamilton argued.

Further, Hamilton asserted that Trump’s “declaration is not reviewable by the courts because it is a political question and thus only Congress could intervene,” Courthouse News Service reported.

Liberty Justice Center is representing VOS Selections, a New York-based company that imports and distributes small-batch wines, spirits and sakes; Genova Pipe, a Utah business that makes plastic pipes, fittings and more for plumbing, irrigation and other applications; MicroKits, a Virginia firm that provides educational electronic kits and musical instruments; Terry Precision Cycling, a Vermont company that creates cycling clothing and gear for women; and FishUSA, an e-commerce business based in Pennsylvania that retails and wholesales sportfishing tackle and related gear.

In requesting the preliminary injunction, Liberty Justice Center argued, in part, that the businesses it represents will suffer irreparable harm if the tariffs are left on the books as the case proceeds. “The ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs represent an existential threat to plaintiffs’ businesses and to thousands of small businesses just like them around the country,” due in part to vastly higher importing costs, Liberty Justice Center argues.

The Trump Administration is reportedly facing about a half a dozen lawsuits that challenge tariffs the White House has implemented this year. California is suing the president in one case, while in another 12 “blue states” banded together to do the same. There are also suits from a Native American tribe in Montana and other activist law firms, which have filed complaints on behalf of American businesses.