Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/12/2025 5:44:35 AM PDT by Red Badger
On Tuesday, May 13, the U.S. Court of International Trade will hear oral arguments in the case of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. This case challenges the legality of certain tariffs imposed on imported goods, raising important questions about the scope of executive authority and the impact of trade policy on American businesses.
During the hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation at Liberty Justice Center, will argue that the tariffs exceed the President’s statutory authority and violate constitutional protections for businesses engaged in international trade.
WHO:
Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation for the Liberty Justice Center
WHEN:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
11:00 a.m. ET
WHERE:
U.S. Court of International Trade
Courtroom 1
One Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
HOW:
The courtroom will be open to the public on a first come, first serve basis. For questions about media access, contact the Clerk’s Office at (212) 264-2800. Information concerning public access via teleconference to the hearing will be forthcoming. Please visit this webpage for future updates.
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/upcoming-court-proceedings-accessible-teleconference
Jeffrey Schwab, along with Senior Counsel Reilly Stephens and Co-Counsel Ilya Somin will be available for comment in-person immediately after the hearing. Liberty Justice Center will also be hosting a virtual media roundtable on Tuesday, May 13, at 2:30 PM ET for any interested media outlets. Please RSVP at the link here.
ISSUE BACKGROUND:
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump challenges the President’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the “Liberation Day” tariffs. Under IEEPA, the President may invoke emergency economic powers only after declaring an emergency in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the U.S. economy originating outside the United States. The lawsuit argues that the President exceeded his legal authority by imposing tariffs beyond what Congress authorized and that the executive branch’s actions violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. The President’s justification—a trade deficit in goods—is neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat.
V.O.S. Selections, Inc., a New York-based wine importer, is among the five small businesses the Liberty Justice Center is representing who have been harmed by these tariffs, which have increased costs and disrupted supply chains. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the limits of executive power.
The legal filing in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump is available here.
https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/002-VOS-Selections-v.-Trump-Compl-2025.04.14-1.pdf
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Libertarian supporters of so-called “free trade” want no tariffs on our end, but are just fine with tariffs on other countries’ end. Trump is causing other countries to lower some of their tariffs and import restrictions on American goods, bringing us closer to real free trade.
What is their standing to bring suit?
Libertarians like open borders and no tariffs (see Rand Paul).
So it is not surprising.
If they prevail, I guess, it would be on Congress to set tariffs?
Good luck with that!
They buy stuff?.......................
President Trump is taking bold action to hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country.
The orders make clear that the flow of contraband drugs like fentanyl to the United States, through illicit distribution networks, has created a national emergency, including a public health crisis.
Chinese officials have failed to take the actions necessary to stem the flow of precursor chemicals to known criminal cartels and shut down money laundering by transnational criminal organizations.
In addition, the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico. The government of Mexico has afforded safe havens for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics, which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims. This alliance endangers the national security of the United States, and we must eradicate the influence of these dangerous cartels.
There is also a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada. A recent study recognized Canada’s heightened domestic production of fentanyl, and its growing footprint within international narcotics distribution.
“Fentanyl is the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49.”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/file/1318011/dl
Their answer is: "Don't sell to those countries."
But American exporters have already proven they will not do that, so Trump's way is better - if disruptive in the short term.
Another Bolshevik, Jeffrey Schwab.
Historically, Congress set tariffs and maintained tight control over this power. However, over time, particularly after the Great Depression, there was a shift towards delegating some authority to the executive branch. This began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements without separate congressional approval each time.
Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority. These allowed the President to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices.
However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.
The historical evolution of tariff authority delegation reflects the adaptability of our constitutional framework. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 marked a pivotal shift, empowering the executive branch to negotiate trade arrangements with other nations. This was not an abandonment of congressional authority but a pragmatic adaptation to enable quick responses to rapid changes in international trade markets.
In United States v. Belmont (1937), the Court upheld the executive’s ability to make unilateral agreements in particular circumstances, confirming that the President had limited latitude to act independently of Congress, yet within the boundaries defined by existing legislation and constitutional principles.
The Steel Seizure Case (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952) provides an important counterpoint to unfettered executive power. The Court invalidated President Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills during the Korean War without explicit congressional authority, emphasizing that the President cannot unilaterally take over domestic industries. Justice Robert Jackson’s influential concurrence laid out a framework assessing executive power based on congressional backing.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, following a thorough investigation.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows the President to impose retaliatory tariffs to counteract unfair foreign trade practices.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): Grants the President authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies involving foreign threats, requiring a formal declaration.
These powers are not absolute. The Supreme Court has consistently underscored the need for an “intelligible principle” guiding the exercise of any delegated authority. This judicial oversight ensures that the President’s tariff-related powers align with congressional intent and constitutional mandates.
While the President possesses significant authority to impose tariffs under certain conditions, this power is framed by statutory directives and constitutional principles that uphold the balance of powers. The legislative branch retains its critical oversight role, ensuring that tariffs are used judiciously in accordance with national interests and the rule of law.
https://www.usconstitution.net/executive-tariff-authority/
Their intent is to undermine America's Sovereignty.
How come nobody ever complains about Libertarians being purists, or using the old "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" saw when discussing their policies ?
???
Don’t sell to countries that have tariffs on US goods?
Even Libertarians eren’t stupid enough to say that knowing they’d be ask to name those countries.
When Trump shows that the country would be bankrupt without tariffs, any reasonable person should support him.
Between balancing fair trade, protecting our manufacturing jobs, providing for our self defense, and the need for the revenue, it’s a no brainer.
Just look at what China did with masks and medical supplies as soon as they knew Covid was arriving.
I sense Rand Paul here.
I am in love with the idea of free trade, and I am at heart libertarian (small “l”),- but free trade is an ideal, one that is not always practical. There is no free trade without fair trade. There MUST be a level playing field for trade to be both fair and free.
Libertarians who are fine with our industry (which is to say m, our workers) having to fight their overseas competitors with one or both hands tied behind their backs are idiots.
Obviously not!
Where in the Constitution is this authority granted?
Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted greater authority and power than the President or the Congress?
Where in the Constitution is the judiciary elevated above the President or the Congress?
Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the authority to nullify acts of the President or the Congress?
Morons. By the time this suit runs its course Trump’s tariffs will have long since achieved their objective and be either significantly reduced or removed.
All this suing is really suing the United States not Trump ,LOL
This company should buy more US wine and stop complaining
President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency
Reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump—it was a cornerstone of his campaign from the start.
Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election.
If the U.S. wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem.
U.S. companies, according to internal estimates, pay over $200 billion per year in value-added taxes (VAT) to foreign governments—a “double-whammy” on U.S. companies who pay the tax at the European border
The United States imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10%) and India (70%) impose much higher duties on the same product.
The UK maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products.
Argentina has banned imports of U.S. live cattle since 2002 due to unsubstantiated concerns regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
For decades, South Africa has imposed animal health restrictions that are not scientifically justified on U.S. pork products, permitting a very limited list of U.S. pork exports to enter South Africa. South Africa also heavily restricts U.S. poultry exports through high tariffs, anti-dumping duties, and unjustified animal health restrictions. These barriers have contributed to a 78% decline in U.S. poultry exports to South Africa, from $89 million in 2019 to $19 million 2024.
The United States has one of the lowest simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates in the world at 3.3%, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), the European Union (5%), India (17%), and Vietnam (9.4%) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.
This imbalance has fueled a large and persistent trade deficit in both industrial and agricultural goods, led to offshoring of our manufacturing base, empowered non-market economies like China, and hurt America’s middle class and small towns.
This Wine importer needs an investigation plus it should STOP WHINING
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.