Trump’s DOJ Seems Awfully Nervous About the Tariff Lawsuits

The complainants’ response was short and common. Perhaps the lawyers who wrote him knew that the judges would see the pseudo-intimidation tactics of Sauer for what they are. Michael McConnell, the main lawyer, noted that his content was “inappropriate” for a letter in rule 23 (J) because the government “has already cited the same events in the argument”. Indeed, the oral arguments took place on July 31, a few days after the announcement of the EU’s “trade agreement”. McConnell disagreed on the need for a stay and argued that it was narrow if it is granted because the complainants “face irreparable and continuous damage to their companies disputed tariffs”.

“If the court is inclined to consider the substance of the letter, there is no basis for its declaration that there is” no substitute “for” the prices and agreements that President Trump has concluded, “he continued. “Even without Iepa, the president can obtain ex ante Authorization to conclude commercial agreements, consult 19 USC § 4202 (a), or submit agreements for the approval of the congress, including via accelerated procedures, as did the previous presidents, see 19 USC § 4501 (implementation of the American-mexico-Canada agreement). »»

In other words, Trump can (and did, during his first mandate) to continue his commercial program through the legal mechanisms that Congress intentionally created to give the flexibility of the presidents during negotiations with other countries. What he cannot do is use the ieepa to arbitrarily apply the massive prices to most of the American economy; Not even to force American trade partners with regard to largely performative commercial negotiations.