The Section 122 Tariffs Case
Emergency Powers, Everyday Costs
The Liberty Justice Center is suing to block the administration’s sweeping Section 122 tariffs—an illegal emergency‑powers workaround that dumps new import taxes on American small businesses and the families they serve.
Our Case
Burlap & Barrel v. Trump
After losing at the Supreme Court on its first global tariff scheme, the administration rushed out a new plan: sweeping “Section 122” tariffs on imports from around the world.
why it matters
The Constitutional Problem with the Section 122 Tariffs
The President is using “balance of payments” as an excuse to justify emergency tariffs, pretending a routine trade deficit is a full‑blown crisis. In reality, America’s overall payments with the world still balance because foreign investors are pouring money into U.S. assets, so the narrow emergency trigger for Section 122 simply isn’t met.
What is Section 122?
Under the Constitution, only Congress can set tariff policy and create new taxes. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is an exception Congress created for one very specific situation: a serious “balance‑of‑payments” emergency, like the kind of dollar crisis the U.S. faced in the 1970s.
Section 122 lets a president respond temporarily—up to 150 days—when the value of the dollar is under real threat or when the U.S. can’t meet its international payment obligations. It was never designed to give any president a blank check to run a permanent global tariff regime.
What is a "Balance in Payments"
The President is claiming that broad Section 122 tariffs are needed to fix a supposed balance‑of‑payments emergency, effectively treating America’s trade deficit—importing more goods than we export—as if it were the same thing as a full‑blown balance‑of‑payments crisis.
That’s wrong on the economics and on the law: the balance of payments is the country’s entire international financial ledger, and in the modern U.S., it always balances because any trade deficit is offset by massive investment flowing into American stocks, bonds, real estate, and other assets.
Our Arguments
We're Standing Up for The Constitution
This case builds directly on our Supreme Court win striking down the administration’s earlier IEEPA tariff plan. The Court has already confirmed that the President cannot invent new tariff powers out of vague statutes. Now the question is whether any administration—this one or the next—can grab a narrow emergency tool like Section 122 and stretch it into a permanent, across‑the‑board tax on imports. If courts sign off on that, future presidents of either party could bypass Congress and rewrite huge parts of U.S. trade policy on their own.
Our lawsuit argues two core points:
Section 122 Does Not Apply In this Situation
Section 122, properly read, simply does not authorize this kind of global, long‑term tariff program in the absence of a real balance‑of‑payments crisis.
Constitutional Safeguards Matter
Our case rests on two key constitutional doctrines: the Nondelegation Doctrine, which forbids Congress from handing core powers like taxation to the executive, and the Major Questions Doctrine, which bars presidents from making major economic decisions without clear congressional approval.
Meet some of Our Clients
Businesses Standing for Liberty
what's next
Project TERRA Will Work to Get Businesses Refunds
Now that the Supreme Court upheld our challenge to the IEEPA tariffs and allowed refunds, Project TERRA will help small businesses claim back what they paid—clearly, quickly, and at no cost for using our resources.
Sign up below, and we’ll keep you updated and send you information about refunds for unconstitutional tariffs.
Questions?
Send us an email at [email protected].
support our work
We won this case, but challenges to the Constitution require vigilance. We fight for our clients free of charge, and we need your support to continue challenging the government and representing the hard-working men and women who run America’s businesses.