On April 16, 2025, the State of California filed a complaint against President Trump, the Secretary of Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The complaint was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California rather than at the U.S. Court of International Trade. The complaint claims that the IEEPA statute does not authorize the President to act unilaterally to issue tariffs and that the President’s conduct in issuing the IEEPA tariff orders violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. The complaint seeks an injunction against the administration from enforcing the executive orders.
The Trump administration first imposed tariffs under IEEPA on February 1, 2025 against Canada, Mexico and China citing a national emergency related to the “influx of illegal aliens and illicit drugs into the United States” (Opioid IEEPA). The Opioid IEEPA orders imposed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico (save for goods qualifying under the USMCA and for imports of energy and potash at 10%) and 20% tariffs against China. See Hush Blackwell reporting on the Opioid IEEPA tariffs here, here and here. Thereafter on April 2, 2025 President Trump invoked the IEEPA again to impose tariffs against all trading partners citing as a national emergency the “persistent annual U.S. goods deficit” (Reciprocal IEEPA). Currently, the Reciprocal IEEPA order imposed a baseline tariff of 10% on all countries as well as higher country-specific rates for 83 countries (See Husch Blackwell reporting here). With the exception of China, the country-specific rates were paused for a period of 90 days as we discussed here. The Reciprocal tariffs on China were increased to 125% following China’s retaliation against the U.S. IEEPA tariff action.
The State of California’s complaint argues that the IEEPA does not provide clear congressional authorization for the President to impose tariffs and that Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the statute —the section cited by President Trump in his executive orders, does not reference the power to impose tariffs, import duties or taxes. Further, IEEPA requires that the President consult with Congress before exercising the authorities under the statute, which it is alleged President Trump failed to do. The Complaint also draws parallels with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Biden v. Nebraska nullifying the President’s authority to forgive student loan debt. There, the high court held that “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence on a matter of earnest and profound debate across the country must rest with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body” and that in such circumstances, the Executive Branch must have “clear congressional authorization” for the power it claims.
The State of California also argues that by issuing the IEEPA orders, President Trump has usurped Congress’s power to determine and collect taxes and in so doing has violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. It emphasizes that Congress’s power under “§ 8 of article 1 of the Constitution ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises’ is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation”.
The complaint reviews the history of the IEEPA to stress that the statute was enacted “by Congress as part of a series of reforms to limit presidential authority and to prevent presidential abuse of power”. It cites to a Report of the House Committee on International Relations discussing Congress’s new approach to international emergency economic powers which states that “The emergency should be terminated in a timely manner when the factual state of emergency is over and not continued in effect for use in other circumstances. A state of national emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.”
Finally, the complaint addresses the unique harm to the economy of California, the fifth largest economy in the world. This includes “drastic impacts on the state’s budget and the Governor’s ability to deliver on his policy goals”, impacting the State’s ability to enter into contracts with vendors, retaliatory tariffs particularly affecting agriculture as well as decreased activity and revenues from ports.
This is the first case by a sovereign entity challenging the IEEPA tariffs although there currently are three other challenges against the tariffs filed by businesses.
[View source.]
