How Trump’s trade war could end by June

A lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs could bring the trade war to a halt as early as this month, depending on a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade.

President Donald Trump’s trade war might come to an unexpected end before summer—without the need for concessions from any trading partners. The outcome now rests with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), a specialized federal court based in New York that deals with customs and trade matters.

On Tuesday, the court is hearing oral arguments in a case filed by small businesses and legal advocates who claim Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping new tariffs is unconstitutional. If the court grants the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, it could block Trump’s tariff regime and disrupt his ongoing trade negotiations with dozens of countries.

The measures in question include a 10 percent baseline tariff on global imports, additional tariffs up to 50 percent on key partners—currently paused—and a 145 percent tariff on China, which the administration recently said would be lowered to 30 percent.

The Trump administration argues that the United States' long-standing trade deficit constitutes a national emergency, giving the president the legal authority to act. Critics, however, say that justification is flimsy and bypasses Congress’s constitutional control over taxation and trade.

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, is representing VOS Selections, a New York-based wine importer, and other small firms. He says an emergency injunction is necessary because many businesses might not survive the prolonged economic strain caused by the tariffs.

“The president’s actions threaten not just trade policy, but constitutional order,” Schwab said. “We don’t think IEEPA gives him the power to impose tariffs at all.”

Former senators and legal experts have filed briefs supporting the lawsuit. In one, former Senator John Danforth (R-Mo.), joined by former senators George Allen and Chuck Hagel and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, argued that the power to tax and impose tariffs has always belonged to Congress.

“This nation was born of the slogan ‘No taxation without representation,’” the brief says. “That power belongs to the people’s elected representatives—not the president acting alone.”

Allen, a former Virginia governor, said he supports Trump’s broader agenda but opposes giving the executive branch unchecked economic powers. “This is a case to preserve and honor the clear, well-reasoned constitutional principle that taxation should be determined by Congress,” he stated.

The plaintiffs also invoke the major questions doctrine, arguing that such a sweeping policy move must be clearly authorized by Congress, and the nondelegation doctrine, which bars Congress from handing over too much unchecked authority to the executive branch.

The Justice Department, defending Trump’s actions, leans on a 1970s court ruling that allowed President Nixon to impose broad tariffs under a similar statute. Legal analysts, however, note that courts today are less likely to interpret ambiguous laws as granting broad presidential authority.

One of the most controversial claims by the administration is that the tariffs fall under the political question doctrine, and therefore aren’t subject to judicial review at all. Schwab called that argument “shocking,” warning that it would effectively give the president “authoritarian control” over the economy.

The outcome of this case could significantly reshape not only U.S. trade policy, but also the balance of constitutional powers between the legislative and executive branches. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, Trump’s current tariffs could be suspended as early as this month, dramatically altering the global trade landscape.

Copied