(Erie Times-News)—It’s too soon to know if a recent ruling by a U.S. appeals court will reduce the size and number of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.
The Court of International Trade ruled May 28 that many of the administration’s tariffs — those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — are improper and illegal because there is no emergency.
The U.S. Department of Justice has appealed that ruling and trade tariffs continue to be imposed in the meantime.
But if permanent change does emerge from that court decision, a small Erie County company will have played a substantial role.
That ruling by the Court of International Trade, a federal court that oversees disputes involving customs and international trade law, came in response to separate cases filed by states and a group of five businesses.
One of those five businesses was Fairview-based FishUSA, a fishing equipment company co-founded 25 years ago by Dan Pastore.
Pastore, who ran unsuccessfully in 2022 as a Democrat to represent Pennsylvania’s 16th District in the U.S. Congress, declined to comment for this story.
But the company’s concerns about the president’s trade policies are apparent from the lawsuit.
FishUSA operates a showroom, fills orders and maintains a warehouse at 6960 West Ridge Road.
But much of what FishUSA sells is sourced from foreign countries, including Canada, China, South Korea and Kenya.
The 25-page lawsuit was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, which describes itself as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-interest litigation firm that seeks to protect economic liberty, private property rights, free speech, and other fundamental rights.”
According to the lawsuit, “FishUSA has spent years working with factories to design and build the products it sells. Shifting production to the United States would mean starting the whole process over again.”
Some of the effects already have been felt.
The lawsuit continues: “The tariffs have caused FishUSA to delay shipment of finished goods from China due to the unpredictability of the tariff rate that will be imposed when the product arrives and it also paused production of some products.
“The chaos created by the uncertain tariffs has prevented FishUSA from growing its business, creating more jobs in the United States and developing new products for its customers.”
Lawsuit: Trade deficit isn’t an emergency
In the view of Liberty Justice Center, what the president has tried to classify as an emergency simply isn’t one.
According to the lawsuit: “Trade deficits are not unusual or extraordinary — the United States has run a net trade deficit at most times since World War II, and consistently since the 1970s.”
What is unusual, according to the lawsuit, is the president’s use of IEEPA to justify tariffs. Previous to his current term, Trump was the only president to even briefly use IEEPA to impose tariffs, and then only briefly.
According to the lawsuit, “The unusual and extraordinary threat asserted as a national emergency by the Liberation Day Order is not an emergency, and is not unusual, extraordinary, new, unexpected, odd or even surprising.”
Which tariffs would be affected by the court’s ruling?
For now, the Trump administration’s ability to impose tariffs has been restored pending a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Other tariffs will not be affected.
Even if the Court of International Trade tosses aside some of the president’s tariffs, those imposed on the steel, aluminum and automotive sectors could remain in place.
Tariffs affected by this ruling include 10% to 30% tariffs imposed on a long list of countries, including China, Canada and Mexico.
The legal case
According to an interpretation by the Liberty Justice Center, even if the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did give the president authority to impose tariffs on any country at any time, “then it would likely violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, which gives the tariff authority to Congress.”
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Center for Justice, said in a statement that he was delighted by the court’s ruling.
“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” Schwab said.
Author: Jim Martin