- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In a high-stakes legal move, Xerox and Lexmark are challenging the tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump’s emergency trade measures, accusing the U.S. government of unlawfully collecting duties on imported goods. The two office equipment giants have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), arguing that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the power to impose tariffs. According to their lawsuit, only Congress has the constitutional authority to levy import duties — a power that Trump, they claim, illegally seized under the guise of national security threats.
The companies are demanding refunds for tariffs already paid on goods sourced from countries like China, Mexico, and Canada. They argue that CBP’s collection of these duties was illegal, and they are pushing for a ruling that could trigger refunds for other businesses hit by the controversial trade policies.
This case is far from isolated. It is part of a broader legal challenge to the Trump administration’s trade agenda, which critics have long argued was a politically motivated overreach of executive power. Xerox and Lexmark’s legal battle echoes the complaints of other companies, such as Ricoh, that have questioned the legitimacy of tariffs imposed without Congressional approval.
The legal precedent is mounting against the Trump-era tariffs. Federal courts have ruled that the IEEPA cannot be used to justify such sweeping tariffs, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already upholding this view. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to weigh in, with the potential to permanently reshape how tariffs are imposed — and potentially strip the President of significant trade powers.
What’s at stake is not just money — it’s a fundamental challenge to the executive overreach that defined much of Trump’s tenure. If the courts rule in favor of Xerox and Lexmark, it could trigger massive refunds for businesses affected by these tariffs, while simultaneously undermining the controversial “national security” rationale Trump used to justify them.
This case is a reminder that even after leaving office, Trump’s trade legacy is still in the courts — and could have far-reaching consequences for how future presidents wield economic power. The outcome of this lawsuit may not only impact businesses but could also be a defining moment in the ongoing battle over executive authority in U.S. trade policy.
Click here for more information!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.