NCLA claims Trump's executive orders misuse emergency powers, place unlawful tax burden on Americans, and violate Constitutional boundaries!

A new legal battle has erupted over former President Donald Trump's controversial decision to raise tariffs on Chinese imports. The conservative legal group, New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), has filed a lawsuit arguing that Trump’s actions represent a blatant abuse of presidential emergency powers, one that not only sidesteps Congress but also imposes an unfair economic burden on American businesses and consumers.

Filed in a Florida district court on Thursday, the lawsuit accuses Trump of using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in an unconstitutional manner to justify a sweeping 20% tariff on all Chinese imports. According to NCLA, the emergency declared by Trump in relation to the synthetic opioid supply chain does not grant him the authority to implement a broad-based economic policy like tariffs—especially without Congressional approval.

“By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress’s right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers,” said Andrew Morris, NCLA’s senior litigation counsel.

The executive orders in question were issued earlier this year—first on February 1 and later amended on March 3. They claimed to address the U.S.'s ongoing crisis with synthetic opioids, allegedly linked to Chinese supply chains. However, critics argue the connection between opioids and a blanket tariff on imports is tenuous at best.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is Emily Ley, founder of the Pensacola-based company Simplified, who fears the tariff hike will cripple her business, which depends heavily on imported goods. Her argument is echoed by John Vecchione, another senior counsel at NCLA, who emphasized that IEEPA does not explicitly grant tariff authority—unlike other Congressional acts that do.

“When Congress wants the president to have tariff power, it says so clearly in the statute,” Vecchione noted. “IEEPA is not that statute.”

Instead, NCLA claims Trump is attempting to justify the tariffs by declaring a national emergency and then arguing that such tariffs are "necessary" to resolve it. But according to the group, there’s a critical flaw: the tariffs are not actually necessary to address the emergency, and the law requires a clear and direct connection.

The lawsuit paints a dystopian scenario where a president could declare virtually any long-standing issue a "national emergency," thereby unlocking unchecked powers to impose tariffs or other economic sanctions—without Congressional oversight.

“If allowed, this interpretation of IEEPA would give the president nearly unlimited authority over economic policy under the guise of emergency response,” the complaint warns.

Trump, for his part, has defended the executive orders as essential tools in protecting national interests, particularly in combating the opioid epidemic. Speaking at his "Make America Wealthy Again" event in the White House Rose Garden, Trump framed the tariffs as a patriotic move to restore American prosperity.

“Now it’s our turn to prosper,” he said. “We will use trillions of dollars from tariffs to reduce taxes and pay down the national debt... and it will all happen very quickly.”

But the legal challenge casts a shadow over that vision. NCLA is asking the court to block the executive orders from being implemented and to roll back all related tariff changes. The group insists that only Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs, and allowing the president to bypass that power undermines the checks and balances of American democracy.

In response, White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields issued a firm statement, defending the administration’s actions as lawful and necessary:

“President Trump has broad authority to impose tariffs to address issues of national emergency, such as the opioid pandemic. The Trump administration looks forward to victory in court.”

As this case unfolds, it not only threatens to undo a significant piece of Trump’s trade strategy, but also sets the stage for a larger debate: How far can a president go under the banner of “national emergency”? And who really controls America’s trade policy—the Oval Office or Congress?