This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
A broad legal challenge to President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs comes from five small businesses, an online fishing gear company, a New York wine importer, a toy kitmaker, a plumbing manufacturer in Utah, and a women cycling apparel brand in Vermont. The suit argues that the tariffs will harm the businesses by increasing costs, reducing demand, and disrupting supply chains, potentially
leading to bankruptcy. My guest is Iliah Suhman, a law professor at George Mason University who's co counsel in the case. Tell us about the International Economic Emergency Powers Act that President Trump invoked in imposing these tariffs.
It's an act and action in nineteen seventy seven intended to enable the President to use various types of economic sanctions in the event of some kind of emergency or crisis. In particular, the Act says it can only be used when the President declares a national emergency, and even then, the emergency has to be with respect to an extraordinary and unusual threat to US economy, security, and the white disseminating from abroad. So it's intended to be used in
response to some sort of crisis that suddenly arises. And I would note the Act nowhere mentions tariffs as one of the powers that the President is able to exercise under it.
So in your lawsuit, you say this court should declare the president's unprecedented power grab illegal. Explain the reasons why.
We have a whole bunch of reasons. Why start off from the fact that this statute doesn't even mention tariffs, and therefore we argue it doesn't authorize the use of tariffs. It may authorize the use of other kinds of economic sanctions in some situations, but not terriff. But let's assume for a second it does authrize prap. Still, those tariffs can only be used in the event of a national emergency. An emergency is a sudden, unexpected crisis, like, for example,
the COVID pandemic that was an emergency. However, bilateral trade deficits for various countries they're not a crisis. They're not an unexpected problem given that they have existed for many decades, and they're not even really a problem at all, because having a bilateral deficit with a particular a country is no more a crisis or a problem than me having a trade deficit with my local supermarket. I buy from them all the time, but sadly they virtually never buy
any of my books. I wish they would buy more of them, but it's not a crisis or a problem. And similarly, if, for instance, Canada or Mexico or some other country, we buy more from them than vice versa, that's not any kind of economic crisis or problem. Anyway, then it's certainly not an emergency. But let's assume courts say we're going to defert in the president's declaring an emergency. Still there has to be an extraordinary and unusual threat.
It's very obvious that there's nothing extraordinary and unusual about bilateral trade deficits of various countries. We've had them for many decades. They're an inevitable aspect of international commerce to some degree, and they're not a thread at all, much
less being an extraordinary or unusual threat. Then the Supreme Court has said in several important decisions over the last few years that when the executive says it has the power to decide a major economic for a social or political question, that they have to show the Congress clearly delegated that power to them. It's not enough to have an ambiguous statute here. It's very obvious that this is
a major question. Indeed, it's the biggest major question I've ever seen in all my years of studying this doctrine, because we're talking about the biggest tax increase on Americans decades and the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. If that is not a major question, I honestly do not know what is. And it's also obvious that at the very least it's not at all clear the Congress is delegated under the statute the sweeping power to impose tariffs.
Finally, if you.
Do interpret the statute as delegating the power to impose tariffs in this situation, which would essentially mean the president could impose any tariff at any rate on any country that he wants, for any reason, at any time, that would bylight constitutional rules against excessive delegation of legislative power to the executive. Those rules are not completely clear, and
the Supreme Court's president. But if you believe there are any limits on congress visibility to delegate power to the executive at all, then you've got to say those limits are breached here, where again you see virtually total user
pations of the power over tariffs. So if we were to lose on these other previous points that I made, then the court, I think, would have to rule that this is unconstitutional unless they want to say there are no limits whatsoever to Congress's power to delegate its authority to the executive Because if they can just say, as the administration claims, they have said that the president could just enact any tariffs he wants at any time, for any reason, in any magnitude, then you might as well
just say that, you know, Congress could similarly completely delegate them the power to impose income taxes or virtually any other powers.
Does it fit in anywhere that Trump's methodology in calculating these tariffs seems odd.
Yeah, the methodology is completely ridiculous. And this further underscores the fact that there is no emergency and no extraordinary and unusual threats, because what these tariffs are doing is totally unrelated, even in many cases, to whether there really is a deficit or not, or any kind of reciprocity.
Even countries would wish we have a trade surplus still are included within these very high tariffs, and even countries like Switzerland and Israel, which imposed no tariffs whatsoever on US goods, they are still hit with high tariffs under Trump's formula thirty one percent in the case of Switzerland seventeen percent when it comes to Israel.
Congress doesn't seem inclined to stop Trump and the tariffs.
There is a bypartisan movement in Congress to try to do that. I fear those that even if that effort were to result in the passage of a law, Trump would be to it. And at this point I do not believe there are veto proof majorities to override that.
So a lot of times with these lawsuits over Trump's executive actions, some of which courts have found unconstitutional or illegal for whatever reason, the courts can't act fast enough to stop the harm from occurring. So a lot of harm as are ready occurred according to the plaintiffs in your case, How fast do you think you can get a court to rule on this?
So I think the court has considerable discretion over that. But we will be speaking a preliminary injunction and a temporary training order, which if we get it with blocks the tariffs from being implemented while the case is litigated to a final decision, and similar CROs techemporary's training orders and preliminary injunctions have been granted in a number of other cases challenging Trump's action. The birth rights citizenship cases are a pretty clearly notable example.
So do you think you can meet the high standard for getting a tro or preliminary injunction.
We believe we can. Obviously, it'll be up to the court to this side.
There have been a few other lawsuits over Trump's tariffs, one over the Canada tariffs and one over the first China tariffs. Is your lawsuit broader than any of those other suits?
Yeah, this lawsuit is much broader in that, as you mentioned, one of those lawsuits, brought by members the Black Seat Nation Indian tribes, is specifically focused on Canada traffs, which affect members of that Native American nation. The other one is focused on the tariffs imposed on China in a separate emergency decoration justified by the supposed FNS no imports
from China. Ours, on the other hand, targets the so called Liberation Day tariffs, which imposed trade restrictions on almost every nation in the world, and therefore the target we're shooting at is much larger and also much more damaging to the US economy and a bigger abuse of power. So I believe that those other two watsuits also have merit, because it's still the case that those other two watsuits are aimed the tariffs under AEPA, the same laws, which
doesn't authorize those tariffs either. And I believe that those other emergency decorations are also focused and also are about things which are not an extraordinary and unusual threads. But in our case, the government's position is even more ridiculous than it is in those other two cases. And also our case deals with a bigger issue because the magnitude of these tariffs and a number of countries affected is much larger.
And can you tell us a little about the plaintiffs. The small businesses that are plaintiffs in.
This case, The plaintiffs' trill small to medium sized businesses that import from a wide range of countries. They range in different industries from wineries to cycling, apparel and items for children, And what they have in common is that they import from countries that are tariffs severely under the President's policy, and their businesses will be severely damaged unless the tariffs are withed. And obviously their customers also suffer
from having higher prices. And if these businesses go under, which could happen as a results of tariffs, obviously the products that they sell will no longer be available in the same way to the customers. So these five businesses, whose situation is described in more detail at the Liberty Justice Central website where we posted this information, they're a microcosm of the broader, enormous damage that these tariffs will due to our economy and less we are.
Able to stop them and tell us about some of the practical implications of allowing the president to impose these tariffs.
So, I think, in addition to the purely legal issues, it is just extremely dangerous to allow one man to have essentially total control of tariffs and be able to rip up at a US trade agreement at each time he wants and destroy the world in US economy at each time he wants. That makes this virtually impossible to have meaningful trade agreements between the US and other countries, because the President to just violate them at any time as he's now dealing with the USMPA agreements that he
himself negotiated with Canada and Mexico. And also it destroys the certainty and predictability the businesses, investors and consumers needs. Why to invest in a factory or sign a contract to the liver goods if you know that, you know the arrangement can be destroyed at any time by you know, the President waking up on the wrong side of his bed and imposing massive tariffs that you make your arrangement unworkable.
And you know that is the kind of thing that businesses in all kinds of industries have been telling us, and economists across the political spectrum.
Also agreed, why did you decide to take part in this particular litigation?
So I'm a law professor. I teach constitutional laws, and in particular I've had an interest in issues related to non delegation and major questions. So what I saw in February, these initial attempts to use AIPA the same statute against Canada and Mexico and China, I wrote a piece online explaining some of the kinds of arguments that I just outlined to you lawyers at the Liberty Justice Center of
Public Interest law firms bomb I Piece. They contacted me and they said the arrengement potentially bringing along on this basis, and when the Liberation Day tariffs happened, we saw that, you know, now is the time to do this, and they invited me to work with them on the case, which Chili was more than happy to do.
Well, thanks so much for joining us today to talk about it. That's law. Professor Ilia Sohman of George Mason University and the State of California filed a suit today over the tariffs, with arguments echoing those in the suit by the small businesses. I'm June grossoh and you're listening to Bloomberg. The nation's oldest and wealthiest university is digging in for a fight with the Trump administration as it
attempts to reshape American higher education. This week, Harvard became the first university to openly defy the Trump administration as it demands sweeping changes to comply with Trump's political agenda. In response, the federal government says it's freezing more than two point two billion dollars in grants and sixty million dollars in contract to Harvard. The hold on funding marks the seventh time the Trump administration has taken such a
step at one of the nation's most elite colleges. Harvard's professors already sued the administration on Friday over its demands, and joining me is one of those professors, Ryan Enos, a professor of government at Harvard. Ryan, can you tell us about the latest demands that Trump administration made for changes at Harvard?
Yeah, so, you know, these were demands that the federal government and the actually, I shouldn't even say the federal government. These are demands that the Trump administration and his loyalists in there have a direct role in the political ideology of faculty and students. And that is something that should really shock people because, you know, it's reminiscent of the type of demands that would come out of for example, MAOIs China, where they were a check on loyalty to
the regime among their intellectuals. And not only that, also reminiscent of Maoice China. What it asked for was that there essentially be a system of reporting where people could report whether or not, you know, Harvard was staying loyal to these demands made by the Trump administration and if their reporting was unsatisfied, that there'd be consequences for that. So in many ways, those were the most shocking parts of those demands from the administration.
And this has all been couched in the accusations of Harvard mishandling anti semitism on the campus. The orders went far beyond that.
They did go far beyond it, and I think that that is an important question for the following reason. What it does is that reveals that what the Trump administration was doing was not actually anything that actually addressed any posed concerns with anti semitism, but was rather a pretext for taking away power from universities. And that is what
authoritarians have done all across the world. Is when they want to attack civil society and take power away from it, what they do is they attack universities first under some kind of pretext. And I can talk about lots of examples of that. So Vladimir Putin attacked universities in Russia, Erduban attacked universities in Turkey, Victor Orbon attacked universities in Hungary, Hugo Chavez attacked them in Venezuela. And when we look at these examples in every case, they have some kind
of a pretext, you know. Edrigan said it was because of support for terrorism among professors, which maybe shows down familiar to you when you hear some of the rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration. And this was simply because professors have signed petitions condemning the Turkish government's war on kurts and then he eventually spread that to a
purging of all the universities. So that should sound familiar to you where the Trump administration is the saying things like support for terrorists on these campuses that is anti Semitic or something like that, and then we are going to come in and take control over who can be the faculty at a university in Hungary, Orabon's complained about foreign influence on the universities where he said there was dangerous foreign influence, and then he used that as a
reason for the government to seize control of the universities and eventually fire faculty and remake the faculty in those universities as well. So there's always the pretext for these
kinds of things. And many of us have been saying for quite some time that that was just a pretext that the Trump administration did not actually care about any kind of policy, and it most certainly does not care about anti Semitism, and that should be plainly obvious to everybody, because of course the Trump administration seems to coddle and sometimes even platform anti Semites, and so if you know, obviously it doesn't care about those things, and that of
course was played out, was shown to be true when they set these list of demands. It had nothing to do with anti Semitism. It was rather just excuses to bring universities under his power.
So you have billions of dollars in federal funds and hanging in the balance. How do you weigh that against what you're trying to protect as an institution.
Well, look, I think it's important to emphasize just what crucial moment this is for American society, and not just higher education, but American society more generally. And what I mean by that is, I don't think you will find an American anywhere that is going to say we are willing to trade our freedom for you know, saving some kind of money. You can't put a price on freedom. You can't put a price on freedom speech, you can't
put a price on freedom of conscience. You can't put a price on the freedom to think and write what we want. And it should be very clear to everybody that that is what the Trump administration is doing. You know, they have picked up students off the streets for things they wrote in student newspapers, and you know, there cannot be a clearer attack on free speech. There cannot be a clearer attack on free speech and trying to control
the ideology of university professors. And so ultimately, you know, I would rather Harvard give away, you know, billions and billions of dollars rather than bow to a regime that is trying to curtail our liberties. And I think most
Americans would agree with that. But I think it's also worth saying that the long term economic health of these universities, of course, does mean that they stand up for the rule of law now, because things like federal grants and the relationship between federal scientific funding and universities require that
that is set by the rule of law. That you know, that money that is appropriated by Congress eventually gets to those universities, not that it can be controlled on the whim of a president who tries to punish his political enemies, and so you know, Harvard could choose to save two billion dollars now, but what happens the next time it does something that upsets the Trump administration, They're just going
to try to take that money away again. So, you know, just like with a schoolyard bully that just keeps coming back for your lunch money, you know, you have to put your foot down and say, you know, you're essentially gonna have to fight me over that. And I think that's what Harvard has done, and it's of course the right move in the long term.
From an outside view, it seems like Trump is holding all the cards. So now he's escalating the fight by threatening Harvard's tax exempt status.
Right. Well, one thing to keep in mind, of course, is that Trump has no legal authority to do that. Right.
You know, I'm not a lawyer, but I know some very good lawyers at Harvard Law School, and they say, you know this is you know clear as day that first of all, you know, these original claims to withhold are illegal, even setting aside the First Amendment, they're illegal by statutory law, and claims to take away tax exempt status is against statutory law as well, because those things are supposed to be decided by a review of the facts,
not by order the president of the United States. And so the point in all this is that Harvard in many ways is holding the cards because it can fight these things in court and will probably win. Now, the danger, of course, is that you know, the Trump administration can just find reasons to keep coming and that's going to be expensive for Harvard, there's no doubt. But Harvard also needs to fight this thing in the court of public opinion, you know, And that's one way you defeat authoritarians is
you prove what they're doing is very unpopular. There's a lot of political science on this, for example, and in the long run, I think that Harvard has win an argument on this, which is that in the United States, we don't tell universities what they can and can't do. We don't tell people what they can and can't think, and we don't tell them what they can and can't say. That is not what freedom of speech is about here.
Do you think that when other universities capitulate and try to meet his demands like Columbia did, do you think it hurts Harvard's position?
Oh? Yeah, it definitely does. I mean but I think there, of course, can be a domino effect on these things. And you know, a lot of people have been arguing that when universities start to fall, it makes it harder for other ones to stand up and fight back. But you know, of course, what we also see is the opposite that can occur too, that when one university stands up, that other universities can stand up and fight back as well.
And you know, one of the reasons that so many people had been urging Harvard to do the right thing was because Harvard had the resources to stand up to take these punches, if you will, for other universities that also wanted to stand up. And you know, in many ways, it's sort of fulfilling a duty that comes with it being the richest and most famous university in the world, is to fulfill his duty to society.
And jellibet the lawsuit by the university's professors, so you.
Know, the AUP, which I'm a member of, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, saying that it had violated not only the free speech of protections that all Americans enjoy, but also that it had violated statutory law by not going through the proper process of withholding funds through Title STIX of the Civil Rights Law, which is what the Trump administration is pointing to, because those require that if there is a violation, which a Trump administration didn't show,
but that those be targeted to the specific units where that violation had occurred, not that they're held over or an institution more generally. And so the newly formed AUPA chapter that was just formed last year filed suit against the Trump administration based on that.
And AAUP standing for American Association of University Professors for those not in.
The know, but you know, I should say that what I do here from many many other professors across the country is people that were waiting for Harvard to stand
up and join it. And of course what we see now is we've seen a lot of faculty, in fact, we're getting ready to release some information on this tomorrow where faculty from across the country at least at seventeen different universities have signed letters to their leadership like we signed here at Harvard, asking them to essentially join the fight against these sort of attacks.
I mean, do you think this is Trump waging a war on the elite or it's something different.
It's not just a war on the elite. You know, attacking elites is part of that, of course, because you know that's what populists do, and Trump's trying to sell himself even though he is the most you know, elite of people you could possibly imagine, and so like many things Trump does, it rings hollow. But part of it is this kind of populist attack on elites. But it goes deeper than that, because what Trump is trying to do is to attack pillars of civil society that allow
for descent. And the reason we know that is because if you look at every authoritarian, including ones that Trump openly admires, like Arabon and Pudin, what they do is they attack three pillars of civil society that can push back against the government. They attack lawyers, they attack the press, and they attack universities. And that is exactly what Trump
is doing. That fits the pattern exactly. And so it's not about someplace being elite, but it's about a place being a home of free thought that could provide descent to what the regime is trying to do.
Thanks for the conversation, Ryan. That's Harvard professor Ryan Enos.
He was deported. They needed one additional step in paperwork, but now MS thirteen is characterized as they should be, as an FTO, as a foreign terrorist organization, so he is not coming back to our country.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is doubling down on the Trump administration's assertion that Kilmore Abrego Garcia, who is deported to L. Salvador in violation of a court order, will not be returning to the United States, placing the blame on L. Salvador's president.
He is not coming back to our country. President Buquele said he was not sending him back. That's the end of the story.
But it appears to be far from the end of the story. Just last Friday, the Supreme Court ordered the government to quote facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in L. Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to L. Salvador, and the federal judge overseeing Garcia's case has threatened to find the government in contempt of court and ordered depositions of administration officials, citing a lack of
evidence that steps have been taken to return him. Joining me is David Voriakiz Bloomberg Legal reporter David tell us about the hearing yesterday about Garcia.
The Federal District judge in Greenbelt, Maryland, Paulaxinis, questioned a Justice Department lawyer closely about why they had not given details to her about what they're doing to return mister Abrego Garcia. As you recall, he was wrongly deported last month to a megaprison in Al Salvador, and a judge in twenty nineteen said in an immigration court that he could not be deported to El Salador. The US later
admitted that he was wrongly deported. The judge now wants to know why the US has not given her answers about what they're doing to facilitate his return. And this case has gone to the Supreme Court, which ordered the United States to work to facilitate his return. She's trying to execute that order and she's growing frustrated because the
Justice Department is not giving her answers. So at the hearing yesterday, Judge Zenas said the US has two weeks to provide answers and that officials from the Trump administration would have to answer questions under oath about what they've done or not done.
I mean, did the Trump administration lawyers say, yes, your honor, we'll comply with that.
They, as they have in the past, disagreed with the judge's interpretation of the law in this case. That led to her further frustration. She felt there was no reason for disagreement, but the Justice Department lawyer repeatedly said that we need to figure out what facilitate means here, what the legal meaning of facilitation is, and she believes that it's quite clear and the Supreme Court made it clear.
But the Trump administration's position is that there's room for interpretation about just what the Supreme Court said.
So we've talked before about that extraordinary Oval Office meeting with Bukele, the president of El Salvador, where basically he said he's not going to return Garcia, and the Attorney General said, well, it's up to l Salvador whether to return Garcia.
Was that mentioned in this There was a discussion of that Oval Office meeting. The Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign raised it, and the judge essentially cut him off and said, I don't care what he said. I don't care about your press releases. It's not in a sworn court statement. I've asked you to give me filings that are under oath that you'll attest to, and you have not done that.
So for right now, there's absolutely no movement to get Garcia out.
That's correct. The movement is in the judge trying to nudge the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security for answers about why they have not acted to facilitate his release.
I think this case is going back to the Supreme Court. It's just a question of how fast. And Today Marilynd Senator Chris van Holland traveled to l Salvador and met with the country's vice president to push for the release of Garcia.
I told his wife and his family I would do everything possible to bring him home, and we're going to keep working at this until we're successful.
Van Holland said the Vice president wouldn't even let him visit this notorious gang prison where Garcia is being held, and said that his government could not return Garcia to the United States. Let's turn to another case involving the deportations to El Salvador. Today, DC Federal Judge James Boseberg found probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt of court because of their actions in the deportations. Remind us how we got to this point, David.
On March fifteenth, the US flew three flights to El Salvador with about two hundred and fifty suspected gang members, and about half of those were people who were deported under the Alien Enemies Act. And that afternoon, Judge Boseburg in Washington had a hearing in which he explicitly told the Justice Department lawyer that if there are flights in the air, I want them turned around and I want
those planes back in the United States. He took a break, the Justice Department lawyer consulted with his superiors and said essentially he had no information to report to the judge. Of course, as it turned out, the planes landed and all of those people are in this megaprison in l Salvador.
The judge then, in early April, had a hearing to consider whether he should bring contempt charges against the Trump administration for defying his oral order that day on March fifteenth, and today he issued in order that said there's probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for defying his order. He's given them an opportunity to correct whatever problems they committed, and we're waiting now to see
what the Trump administration's response will be. He said that depending on that response, he may refer specific individuals who he has not identified yet, for criminal prosecution. If the Justice Department decides they will not pursue a prosecution of those individuals, which seems unlikely, Judge Bosburg would appoint his own lawyer to pursue it.
The planes have already landed in El Salvador. The Venezuelans are in prison there. What could the Trump administration do to correct their mistake? Does he expect them to fly the more than two hundred people back, I mean, what could correct their mistake?
Well, the judge has said essentially that potentially they could have the people returned to the US to make their case to a federal judge in the United States because they were deported without due process. That's the issue here is they had no opportunity to dispute whether they are gang members of Trenda Arragua, which the United States and President Trump cited in a March fifteenth proclamation that said they were subject to deportation as alien enemies.
A complication is that the Supreme Court ruled that Judge Bosburg basically didn't have jurisdiction over the Venezuelans, that they had to try to get released through habeas corpus petitions in the place where they were being held. But he's acting as if he has jurisdiction over the Venezuelans in El Salvador.
The judge said in his order today that even though the case was essentially transferred out from under him, he still retains jurisdiction to bring a contempt case because that would be a violation of the Constitution. He cited an eighteen nine Supreme Court opinion that said it would make a solemn mockery of the Constitution itself if administration officials willfully disobeyed judicial orders.
And the Trump administration has already said that it's going to seek immediate appellate relief. No surprise there. Thanks so much for keeping us up to date on these cases. David. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, and that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Law and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg