Legitimate Economic and Legal Concerns About Executive Tariffs

Shortly after taking office, the president used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose two types of tariffs. His trafficking tariffs affected imports from Canada, China and Mexico, while his reciprocal tariffs established import taxes on an extensive list of goods from many U.S. trading partners. Now facing an existential threat at the Supreme Court, Trump’s IEEPA tariffs seem unlikely to survive. Their legal deficiencies are as severe as their economic deficiencies. In response to escalating tariff-induced costs, businesses challenged these measures in federal courts. Learning Resources and hand2mind, small businesses that import and sell educational toys, initially filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, complaining that they would pay 45 times as much in tariffs as they paid in 2024. In a separate case, a group of small businesses and several states challenged the Trump tariffs in the Court of International Trade in New York. Terry Cycling, a plaintiff that sells women’s cycling apparel, voiced concern that increased costs from tariffs could drive it out of business in 2026. The lower courts adopted a narrow interpretation of the president’s tariff powers, ruling that Trump’s trafficking and reciprocal tariffs exceeded his delegated power under IEEPA. Following a petition from the U.S. solicitor general and the Supreme Court’s granting of certiorari last month, the two cases were consolidated. Due to the urgency of these issues, the court expedited these cases and scheduled oral arguments for early November.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether IEEPA empowers the president unilaterally to levy tariffs via executive orders. The tariff challengers urge the court to scrutinize the executive’s interpretation of IEEPA, arguing for a narrow reading of the statute’s text. Writing on behalf of these organizations, the Cato Institute points out that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution vests all tariff power in Congress alone. Although Congress has occasionally delegated limited tariff authority to the president, previous transfers have contained unambiguous language that communicated clear intent for the president to exercise duty-setting authority.  Since the term “tariff” does not appear in the language of the IEEPA, the president’s claim to tariff power rests on the statute’s language of “regulate … importation.” Challengers argue that a broad reading of the president’s power to “regulate” under the IEEPA would drastically expand the president’s power to tax to a degree that cannot withstand the scrutiny of the Major Questions Doctrine. This doctrine, in vogue with the current Supreme Court originalist majority, stipulates that Congress must be clear when it delegates power on issues of “vast economic and political significance.” Opponents of the tariffs argue that, under this doctrine, the exclusion of the word “tariff” from the text of the IEEPA precludes the president’s ability to exercise sweeping unilateral tariff powers. 

Tariff challengers note, moreover, that even if the IEEPA did somehow confer tariff powers to the president, this power may be exercised only during a national emergency; and the tariffs must address an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or [the] economy of the United States.” Honest legal and economic analysis demonstrates that Trump’s tariffs simply do not meet these conditions. The arguments raised by organizations opposing protectionist policies expose the catastrophic consequences tariffs pose for businesses and draw attention to grave constitutional concerns. Principled analysts should recognize the detrimental economic effects of protectionist policies and the importance of preserving the rule of law, whatever the momentary political desires of the current occupant of the White House.  

Excessive Housing Regulation Killing Broadway

Earlier this month, The New York Times lamented that “the Broadway musical is in trouble.” The piece spells out how the vast majority of new Broadway shows are losing money. A follow-up piece posits that the reason is rising production costs, which have not been accompanied by a rise in ticket prices. Others online speculated that the true reason might be declining show quality. While Hell’s Kitchen: The Musical (yes, really) might not carry the same gravitas as older classics like The Phantom of the Opera, the high costs of staying in the Big Apple may be a significant source of Broadway’s woes. Policymakers should end destructive policies that set the stage for empty theaters.  Advertisement Catching a Broadway show is often a real treat for out-of-town visitors to New York City (NYC). The 2023 Broadway Demographics Report shows that roughly two out of every three attendees come from outside the NYC metropolitan area. However, NYC has recently made it much harder for visitors to find accommodations in the city during their stay. 

Passed in 2022, and implemented a year later, NYC Local Law 18 severely restricts the use of short-term rentals (STRs) within city limits. Though not an outright ban on platforms such as Airbnb, the law has been referred to as a functional ban because of the high barriers it sets up for both renters and platforms. It stipulates that hosts must get special permission with the mayor’s office to offer their property as an STR. A property may not be used as an STR if it is not the owner’s primary residence. Further, the law mandates the property owner to be present during the course of the rental and limits such rentals to no more than two people per room. In the wake of Local Law 18, hotel prices in NYC have risen to record highs. In March of 2025, the average nightly cost for a room in an NYC hotel reached a staggering $320. For perspective, the average across the whole of the U.S. during the same time was roughly $159. Over the past year, hotel rates in NYC have risen by 5.4 percent, whereas rates across the country have only risen 1.8 percent over the same timeframe. Would-be NYC visitors have fewer options, and legal options are getting more and more expensive. The law is not only affecting Broadway shows, but localities as well. In 2024, local chambers of commerce from all five boroughs raised the alarm in an open letter to the City Council. They noted that some neighborhoods are seeing as much as a 70 percent drop in foot traffic. This is impacting local businesses in a major way. In particular, Crown Heights in Brooklyn, Astoria in Queens, and the South Bronx have seen a marked reduction in tourism dollars.  The law is also hurting some of NYC’s local communities. The New York Urban League claims the restriction on STRs particularly hurts the city’s Black and Latino populations, who often use the income from sharing their homes to build generational wealth within their neighborhoods. The Latino Restaurant, Bar, and Lounge Association notes, “Short-term rental guests often bring our restaurants to life—and their absence is being felt nightly.” 

New York’s local restaurant scene—including the best pizza and pasta in the country—is part of what makes it an attractive destination for travelers. The ability to catch a Broadway show and then dine out at one of the best restaurants in the country is a unique experience that many around the country—and the world—only dream about. NYC’s restrictions on STRs are threatening to upend the ecosystem that makes it one of the greatest cities in the world. As big cities like NYC seek to hit their stride once again in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, it will need all the help it can get to revitalize a once-booming tourism industry. STR hosts and platforms ought to be a big part of supporting NYC’s theaters, restaurants, and local businesses. Unfortunately, local leaders have prioritized the interests of the hotel industry over virtually everyone else in their city. People can muse over what’s gone wrong with the Broadway musical. Yes, the shows might not be as instantly recognizable or as original as they used to be. Sure, there may be an over-emphasis on eye-popping, expensive sets, which make the shows more costly. However, these questions remain moot if people can’t afford to stay in the city in the first place. City leaders ought to close the curtain on Local Law 18 to put a stop to the trend.   

Blogs:
 

Monday: New TPA Report Exposes WHO Tobacco Treaty as a Cautionary Tale of Secrecy & Ideology

Tuesday: Most Favored Nations Just Another Harmful Price Control

Friday: Taxpayer Tricks and Treats 2025

October 16, 2025: Inside Sources (Washington, D.C.) and 10 other outlets ran TPA’s exclusive, “Exclusive Poll: Americans Lack Trust in RFK Jr. as Health.”

October 16, 2025: Inside Sources (Washington, D.C.) quoted in their story, “GOP Backed Tax Reform Targets Foreign Funding of Big-Dollar Litigation – DC Journal.”

October 17, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Former Baltimore City Schools Police Officer pleads guilty to wire fraud, tax evasion.”

October 18, 2025: American Spectator ran TPA’s op-ed, “Why Free Speech Needs Congressional Action.”

October 20, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about the excessive cost of the city website creation, operation, and management.

October 20, 2025: Tobacco Reporter (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s exclusive, “TPA Brief Criticizes WHO Tobacco Treaty for Ignoring Evidence.”

October 20, 2025: The Well News ran TPA’s op-ed, “Challenges to Executive Tariffs Raise Legitimate Economic and Legal Concerns.”

October 21, 2025: The Boston Herald (Everette, Mass.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Tariff revenues rising, along with costs.”

October 21, 2025: The Herald Dispatch (Huntington, Wv.) quoted TPA in their story, “Chris Woodward: Tax reform targets foreign funding of big lawsuits (Opinion).”

October 21, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Watchdog calls for audits after mayor’s wife's non-profit deemed 'delinquent' by state.”

October 22, 2025: The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “81 Baltimore nonprofits 'delinquent' Nonprofits Data shows 8% of those based in city have not satisfied state requirements.”

October 22, 2025: WCBM (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their news segment on the Baltimore nonprofit state requirements.

October 22, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Taxpayer-backed Baltimore youth fund refuses to answer questions about spending.”

October 22, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “After stealing $215K in taxpayer funds, Baltimore Schools Police Officer retains pension.”

October 23, 2025: The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Youth fund won't answer questions on spending Fund Gaps in transparency at taxpayer-backed Baltimore nonprofit.”

October 23, 2025: The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “581 Md. nonprofits are not in good financial standing Nonprofits

October 23, 2025: WCBM (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their news segment on the Baltimore school police officer stealing funds.

October 23, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about declining revenue from legalized cannabis.

October 23, 2025: Real Clear Health ran TPA’s op-ed, “FDA’s Drug Rejection Spree Is Harming Patients.”

October 23, 2023:  I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about the deficit/debt and the economy.

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14^th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C.
Office:  (202) 930-1716
Mobile:  (202) 258-6527
www.protectingtaxpayers.org