The Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs under the guise of national security provoked sharp legal scrutiny, culminating in a series of decisions by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).
These rulings tested the limits of presidential power under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a Cold War-era statute that grants the president wide discretion to restrict imports deemed threats to national security.
While the courts temporarily curtailed some tariffs, the administration responded with legal maneuvers aimed at preserving the White House’s authority in trade matters. This article analyzes the statutory framework, the judicial challenges, and the legal basis for the Trump administration’s reinstatement of tariffs after judicial rebukes.
Section 232: The Foundation for Trump’s Tariffs
Section 232 authorizes the president to “adjust the imports” of goods if the Secretary of Commerce concludes that they threaten to impair U.S. national security. Unlike traditional trade remedies, such as anti-dumping or countervailing duties, Section 232 is not contingent on injury to domestic industry but on broader strategic considerations.
During his presidency, Donald Trump invoked this authority to impose tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) in 2018. The justification was framed in terms of protecting domestic production crucial to military readiness.
Judicial Pushback: Procedural Overreach
In Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, the CIT ruled in 2020 that the president exceeded his statutory authority by doubling the tariff on Turkish steel imports without adhering to the statutory time limits outlined in Section 232.
Specifically, Section 232 requires the president to act:
- Within 90 days of receiving the Secretary of Commerce’s report.
- After that, the president must implement any action within 15 days.
In this case, President Trump imposed the additional tariff months after the statutory deadline had expired, and without a new report from the Commerce Department. The CIT determined that this action violated both the timing and procedural requirements of the statute.
Executive Response: Reasserting Section 232 Authority
Faced with court-imposed limits, the Trump administration used several approaches to reassert its trade policy authority:
- Appeals: The Department of Justice appealed unfavorable CIT rulings, including Transpacific Steel, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- Reissuance of Tariffs: In some instances, the administration considered reissuing tariffs under a new procedural process or initiating a fresh Section 232 investigation.
- Framing as National Security: The administration argued for a broad interpretation of “national security,” suggesting that courts should defer to executive judgments in areas implicating foreign policy and defense.
The underlying legal theory was rooted in a long-standing doctrine of executive deference in national security matters, akin to that in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which upheld the president’s travel ban.
Broader Implications for Trade Law
The conflict between the courts and the executive branch highlighted a deeper constitutional tension over trade powers. While Congress delegated substantial trade authority to the president in the postwar period, the Trump administration’s expansive interpretation of Section 232 revived questions about the nondelegation doctrine the idea that Congress cannot transfer its legislative power without clear limits.
Though the CIT ruled on narrow statutory grounds, several trade law experts saw the decisions as part of a growing judicial willingness to scrutinize executive action in trade, especially when national security is used as a catch-all justification.
Conclusion
The legal battle over Trump-era tariffs reveals how statutory nuance and procedural timing can shape the trajectory of national economic policy. While Section 232 remains a potent tool for the executive branch, the courts have clarified that it is not immune from judicial oversight.
As new administrations consider leveraging trade remedies for policy goals—whether climate, labor, or security-related—the legacy of these cases will likely influence how far a president can go in unilaterally reshaping the global trading system.
Subscribe for Full Access.
