Last updated on April 30, 2025
Five small businesses have asked a federal court to block the Trump administration’s recently imposed tariffs on nearly all imports, arguing that the duties exceed the president’s authority and are already causing financial harm. In a complaint filed April 14 in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, importers and manufacturers based in New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Utah, allege that the president’s actions rest on an unconstitutional interpretation of emergency powers and will have far-reaching and destructive economic effects.
The lawsuit challenges Executive Order 14257, issued April 2, which imposes a 10 percent baseline tariff on all imported goods and authorizes steeper duties against countries with persistent trade surpluses. The administration described the order as part of its “Liberation Day” strategy to reduce the nation’s trade deficit and restore American self-reliance.
In their filing, the plaintiffs describe President Donald Trump’s order as “an unprecedented power grab” that invokes emergency authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act without legal basis. They argue that longstanding trade deficits do not qualify as an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” as the statute requires.
“[Trump’s] claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination,” the complaint claims. “Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent U.S. Customs and Border Protection from collecting the new tariffs. The motion describes the duties as economically ruinous and argues that the plaintiffs have no avenue to recover financial losses if the duties are later invalidated. “The Liberation Day Tariffs will destroy their businesses by increasing the cost of goods to unsustainable levels, forcing them to curtail operations or shut down entirely,” the filing argues.
The plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits importer based in New York; MicroKits, LLC, a Virginia manufacturer of electronics kits for science education; Genova Pipe, a Utah-based company that imports materials for plastic pipe production; FishUSA Inc., a Pennsylvania fishing gear retailer; and Terry Precision Cycling, a Vermont importer of cycling apparel and gear.
Since early February, the administration has issued a succession of executive orders related to tariffs. In addition to Executive Order 14257, the White House has announced increased duties on Chinese goods in response to synthetic opioid trafficking, adjustments for retaliatory tariffs, and exemptions for low-value imports.
The plaintiffs argue that the administration’s actions violate both statutory and constitutional limits. They invoke the “major questions doctrine,” under which courts require clear congressional authorization for executive actions of vast economic significance. The complaint also advances a nondelegation claim, asserting that if IEEPA were construed to authorize such tariffs, it would represent an impermissible transfer of legislative power.
“This Court should declare the President’s unprecedented power grab illegal,” the complaint says, “and reaffirm this country’s core founding principle: there shall be no taxation without representation.”
The plaintiffs also argue that tariffs imposed through IEEPA differ from those under traditional trade laws because they are not subject to procedural requirements or public comment. Unlike Section 301 tariffs, which target unfair trade practices, or Section 232 tariffs, which respond to national security concerns, the “Liberation Day” orders rely solely on the president’s emergency declaration and allow broad, ongoing tariff-setting.
The plaintiffs emphasized a view that the stakes in the case are, from their perspective, existential. “The Liberation Day Tariffs are not a ‘temporary’ emergency measure,” their motion warns. “They impose permanent new customs duties that Plaintiffs must pay now, or else risk losing suppliers, customers, and viability.”
About Author
