Marilyn-Joy Cerny has challenged the US government thousands of times during her 35-year career as a trade lawyer, enjoying an enviable record of recovering tariff money for importers whom Washington wrongfully charged.
Advertisement
But the sheer scale of potential refunds – known technically as protests – should the Supreme Court rule against US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies in the coming weeks, potentially amounting to US$100 billion or more, has given even her pause.
“I have filed so many protests in my day, I joke with my team that Customs might be saying, ‘me think she doth protest too much’,” said Cerny, managing partner with law firm Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg. “Of my protest cases that I’ve had to take to court? I would say 95, 96 per cent [were successful]. But the Supreme Court may really erode my success rate.”
During oral arguments earlier this month, several Supreme Court justices appeared sceptical of Trump’s record of collecting tariffs at will based on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Under the US Constitution, Congress oversees taxation, not the president.
06:31
Soybeans: China’s new bargaining chip in trade war with US?
Soybeans: China’s new bargaining chip in trade war with US?
Trump’s legal team, however, argues that the decades-old US trade deficit is a national emergency that justifies imposing tariffs on most of the world and that they are regulatory and not aimed at generating revenue.
Advertisement
Should the ruling go against Trump – the decision is expected within weeks, lightning speed by Supreme Court standards – Washington may have to engineer a giveback larger than the annual GDP of over 100 nations.