President Donald Trump’s tariff authority just got a judicial nod. A Florida federal judge, appointed by Trump himself, ruled Tuesday that the president can unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as ABC News reports. This decision slaps down progressive dreams of a powerless executive.
A Florida-based company, Emily Ley Paper, filed a lawsuit in April to block Trump’s tariffs, claiming he lacked the power to act alone. The judge, T. Kent Wetherell II, transferred the case to the Court of International Trade in New York. In one swift move, he both upheld Trump’s authority and punted the fight to a specialized venue.
Wetherell’s ruling leaned on a 1970s case where a Japanese zipper company, Yoshida, challenged Nixon’s tariffs. That precedent, set by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, backed the president’s power under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), the IEEPA’s predecessor. History, it seems, still packs a punch.
“The reasoning in Yoshida is persuasive,” Wetherell wrote, noting the IEEPA’s language mirrors the TWEA’s. He argued there’s no reason the old ruling wouldn’t apply today. Critics of this logic might want to dust off their law books before crying foul.
Trump justified his tariffs as a tool to curb illicit drug flows and fix trade imbalances. The IEEPA, enacted in 1977, grants presidents the right to “regulate” imports, though it doesn’t explicitly mention tariffs. Leave it to the left to demand a permission slip for common-sense policy.
Emily Ley Paper’s lawsuit was one of many challenging Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. Wetherell’s decision marks the first time a federal judge has signaled these tariffs fall within presidential authority. Score one for executive action over bureaucratic handwringing.
The transfer to the Court of International Trade isn’t just procedural -- it’s strategic. This New York court has been grappling with similar questions about Trump’s tariff powers over the past week. Specialized judges are better equipped to handle the nuances of trade law, not activist agendas.
Lawyers opposing Trump argue the IEEPA doesn’t give him carte blanche to slap on tariffs. They claim he’s encroaching on Congress’s turf, which traditionally controls trade policy. Funny how they only care about checks and balances when it suits their narrative.
Wetherell’s ruling is a symbolic win for the Trump administration. It reinforces the president’s ability to act decisively without being bogged down by endless legal nitpicking. The woke crowd might clutch their pearls, but leadership isn’t about asking permission.
Back in 1971, Nixon imposed steep tariffs on Japanese goods to tackle an economic crisis. Yoshida, now known as YKK, the world’s largest zipper producer, sued and lost. That court’s affirmation of Nixon’s power under the TWEA set the stage for Trump’s defense today.
Wetherell emphasized the IEEPA’s role in this civil action against the United States. “This is a civil action commenced against the United States and it ‘arises out of’ a federal law -- IEEPA,” he wrote. Clear as day, yet one might have expected the usual suspects to feign confusion.
The Court of International Trade’s predecessor upheld Nixon’s tariffs, and Wetherell sees no daylight between that case and Trump’s. The IEEPA’s language, identical to the TWEA’s in key parts, gives Trump the same leverage. Legal consistency isn’t sexy, but it’s solid.
Trump’s opponents argue that he’s stretching the IEEPA beyond its intent. They insist tariffs are Congress’s domain, not a presidential plaything. Yet, when drugs flood borders and trade deficits soar, waiting for congressional debates isn’t exactly a winning strategy.
The Court of International Trade now holds the reins on this lawsuit. Its judges, already deep in tariff disputes, will decide if Trump’s policies hold up. Given Wetherell’s ruling, the administration’s odds look better than a bureaucrat’s coffee break.
This Florida ruling sends a message: Trump’s tariffs aren’t just bluster -- they’re legally grounded. As the fight moves to New York, expect more handwringing from those who would rather see America lose than Trump win. Actions, as always, have consequences.
