The first challenge to the Section 232 steel/aluminum tariffs has been filed (thanks to Larry Friedman for the tip). This is an excerpt from the complaint:
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Severstal Export GmbH ("SSE") and Severstal Export Miami Corporation ("SSE M ") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this Complaint against the United States of America, United States Customs and Border Protection, Acting Commissioner Kevin K. McAleen.an, the United States Department of Commerce, Secretary Wilbur L. Ross, and President of the United States Donald J. Trump (collectively "Defendants"). The Complaint seeks injunctive relief against the imposition of the Steel Proclamation tariffs and a declaration that those tariffs are unconstitutional because they are not tied to the interest of protective national security.
...
44. The Steel Proclamation states on its face that it was issued because the importation of steel articles threatened to "impair the national security." However, the national security basis stated in the Steel Proclamation is a pretext to the actual intent for the imposition of tariffs on steel articles: President Trump's regularly stated intent, both prior to entering the Office of the President, and after assuming the Presidency, to obtain a "positive trade balance" with other countries, to "bring jobs home", and win trade wars. Because President Trump did not base his decision on national security grounds as required under Section 232 in issuing the Steel Proclamation, the Proclamation is unlawful.
45. The Constitution vests in Congress all powers related to the regulation of trade, including the imposition of tariffs and duties, The Executive has only those powers delegated to it by Congress. President Trump exceeded the authority delegated to him by Congress in Section 232, since that authority was limited to circumstances where he was legitimately acting in the interest of national security. Since the asserted national security grounds were a thinly veiled pretext for the President's political agenda and his America First economic policy, the Steel Proclamation is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Sees e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585-86 (1952) (courts have authority to review whether the President's actions violated the United States Constitution or another federal statute); .Panatna Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 433 (1935) ("When the President is invested with legislative authority as the delegate of Congress in carrying out a declared policy, he necessarily acts under the constitutional restriction applicable to such. a delegation.").
46. Because the Steel Proclamation was unlawfully and unconstitutionally issued, any actions taken by the Defendants to implement and enforce the Steel Proclamation are ultra vices and unlawful.
