Donald Trump’s large tariff might be able to survive the legal challenges, some thanks to the Japanese zipper company that sued the Nixon government 50 years ago.
Earlier this week, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Donald Trump suggested that the President had the authority to unilaterally impose a tariff – based his decision on the precedent of the 1970s court case – but stopped issuing orders that confirmed the president’s right to impose a sweeping rate.
In the majority of technical decisions issued on Tuesday, US Judge T. Kent Wetherell II transferred one of the first lawsuits that challenged Trump’s tariff to different federal courts while also considering the legality of controversial tariffs. Florida -based planner company, Emily Ley Paper, sued the tariff in April, asking Wetherell to cancel it because Trump did not have the power to charge his own tariff.
According to the judge, the law of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Strength gave Trump Authority to set tariffs for reasons other than increasing income. Wetherell wrote that Trump’s justification for the tariff – both of them stepped the flow of drugs – forbidden drugs to the country and resolve trade imbalances – sufficient to meet the requirements set by the congress.
“This is a civilian action that began against the United States and emerged from ‘federal law – Ieepa – so the dispositive question framed by the submission of parties is whether Ieepa’ provid[es] Because … tariff, ‘”he wrote.” The defendant argues that it happened; The plaintiff argues that no. The court agrees with the defendant … “
The decision was the best symbolic victory for Trump’s administration, which fended for half a dozen lawsuits that challenge the legality of the new “Liberation Day” tariff.
Judge Wetherell finally decided to transfer this case from the Federal Court in Florida to the International Trade Court in New York, which means that, regardless of his profitable view of the tariff, he would not be the person who determined the case.
President Donald Trump attended the America Healthy Again Make Commission, in the east room of the White House in Washington, May 22, 2025.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
But the decision marked the first time a federal judge suggested the imposition of Trump’s tariff, including in his authority as president, offering a positive sign that the Trump government could find a receptive hearing in the International Trade Court. During the two hearing in the past week, judges in the International Trade Court have granted the same question about Trump’s authority.
The question depends on the interpretation of the 1970s law used by Trump to force the tariff. Ieepa gave the president the right to “regulate” imports but did not explicitly mention the tariff. Lawyers who challenge tariffs have argued that Trump’s interpretation of laws exceeded his authority by stepping on the problem controlled by the congress, but the Trump government has shown a judge on a court decision related to the legal predecessor Ieepa – trade with the Enemy Law in 1917 – to guide the way.
Back when President Richard Nixon faced the country’s economic crisis in 1971 with steep tariffs on Japanese goods, a zipper -based company named Yoshida sued Nixon at the tariff.
The Customs and Excise Court of Patent, the predecessor of the International Trade Court, sided with the government and stated that Twae gave the president of strength to impose tariffs.
According to Wetherell, the same reason will be valid 50 years later to Ieepa, which means Trump has the power to impose a tariff without the help of a congress. “The reason in Yoshida is persuasive, and the court does not see the reason why it does not apply to Ieepa because the language of the Ieepa operation is identical to the language of operations at TWEA,” the judge wrote.
Despite losing in his legal battle, Yoshida remains in the current business. Now operating with the name YKK, it produces more zippers than other companies in the world.