Two prominent Republicans questioned the suitability of switching tariffs for quotas because of currency manipulation in Brazil and Argentina, as President Donald Trump said Dec. 2 he is doing. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., the leading critic of Trump's trade policy, issued a statement that night that said, “He is justifying these tariffs by citing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. This provision is exclusively meant for national security threats. Yet, the President has acknowledged that the real purpose of this action is to combat currency manipulation -- which does not pose a national security threat. Furthermore, even if this action were legitimate, the statutory window for imposing these tariffs has closed. These actions further underscore that Congress should take up my legislation that would reassert congressional authority regarding imposition of national security tariffs.”
A recent Supreme Court case on courts' deference to federal agencies will likely result in tougher legal scrutiny of trade policies made by the Commerce Department, CBP and other agencies that affect trade, said Devin Sikes, a lawyer at Akin Gump. Sikes wrote that the U.S. Court of International Trade and federal appeals courts will be doing deeper reviews of federal agencies' trade regulations that could have ambiguity. "Federal agencies operating in the international trade arena likewise will need to more fully explain their reasons for interpreting a regulation in a particular way," Sikes wrote. "These agencies may no longer assert ambiguity based on the regulation’s terms and expect deference from the courts. Expect an increase in the number of challenges filed contesting an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations."