The Donald Trump administration defended its controversial tariffs before a trade court in New York on Wednesday, arguing that striking down the levies would “completely kneecap” the US president amid the country’s trade talks with China. It was the second time in a week that the Court of International Trade heard a lawsuit challenging whether Trump’s use of a “national emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was legally justified to support the tariffs. The IEEPA is a 1977 law allowing a US president to impose economic measures during a national emergency to address an “unusual and extraordinary threat”. Wednesday’s lawsuit before a three-judge panel, led by the state of Oregon and joined by 11 other states, had a broader scope than the previous legal challenge before the court brought by a group of small businesses. The states contested not only Trump’s “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 but also the 20 per cent tariffs he ordered in February on China, Mexico and Canada over fentanyl production and trafficking. Both cited the IEEPA as justification. The Trump administration argued that the president’s emergency declarations were not subject to judicial review because the matter is a “political question” and only the US Congress could intervene. A lawyer for the US government further said striking down the tariffs would “completely kneecap” the president as his administration now negotiates trade deficits and America’s fentanyl crisis. “Is the ultimate statement that this is an extraordinary situation and an emergency a factual determination?” asked Judge Jane Restani. “No, I think that’s a legal determination,” responded Brian Marshall, senior assistant attorney general for the Oregon Department of Justice. Judge Timothy Reif questioned whether the Court of International Trade could review the legality of an American president’s declaration that an emergency had arisen such that the IEEPA could be invoked. “Where does the court stop in that analysis and not just become basically a second taxi driver to the president in assessing what the emergency is and how it needs to be addressed?” Reif asked. Marshall said the court must determine whether a “reasonable relationship” existed between the policy objective and action taken, citing fentanyl-related tariffs as an example. “I think the only way in which they are related – and this seems to be by the government’s admission – is as a reaction,” the lawyer for Oregon said. “And our view is that that category of just leverage is not a reasonable relationship,” he added, saying that “‘unusual and extraordinary’ is a different threshold question”. Brett Shumate, representing the Trump administration, told the judges that the president acted well within his authority when imposing tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico as well as reciprocal tariffs on all trading partners. He said Trump determined that a national emergency was at hand as illegal drugs poured into the country and trade deficits “hollowed out our domestic manufacturing base”. The “purpose of these tariffs is to create pressure” and “bring trading partners to the table”, he added. In response, Judge Gary Katzmann asked Shumate that if the purpose of the tariffs was to create pressure, then would that not align with the states’ brief that creating pressure “is not, in itself, an emergency”? Restani said the tariffs “may be a very dandy plan, but it has to meet the statute”. However, Shumate argued that the court’s inquiry ended at the question of whether the IEEPA authorises tariffs. “The other two arguments he’s making about whether this is unusual and extraordinary and whether the means fit within the statute,” the government’s lawyer said, referring to Marshall. “Those are political questions.” Shumate told the judges that the US Congress already has a number of ways to check the US president’s powers and that Trump had consulted the legislative body on tariffs. But when Restani asked him whether there was a report of that consultation before the tariffs were announced, he responded: “I don’t know.” Shumate later said the court was “not in a position where it reviews the president’s compliance with IEEPA”. He went on to say an injunction to suspend the tariffs would be “extremely disruptive”, describing Trump as “in the middle of foreign negotiations with other countries about trade deficits and about the fentanyl crisis”. Restani pushed back, saying the court could not simply defer to a president if his actions were not authorised by law. “We can’t just say, ‘Well, it would be better politically, for the world, or whatever, for the president to act this way,’ and then allow it if the statute doesn’t permit it,” the judge said. “I don’t think we can do it that way.” The Trump administration tariffs have upended global supply chains, shaken financial markets and fuelled concerns over rising inflation and a potential economic slowdown. In Wednesday’s lawsuit, the complainants assert that the US Constitution reserves tariff-setting power exclusively for the US Congress. The case brought by Oregon is joined by Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has argued that no “unusual or extraordinary” threat existed for the US to support the government’s position. In recent months, as the impact of the tariffs have hit, a wave of legal challenges has followed, coming from US businesses, state governments and advocacy groups. Eight lawsuits have been filed, six of which are being heard by the Court of International Trade, with the others before different federal courts. Last week, the court heard the first of these cases to reach oral arguments. That lawsuit was brought by five small businesses represented by the libertarian public-interest firm Liberty Justice Center and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. Jeffrey Schwab, on behalf of the complainants, argued that the IEEPA does not authorise the use of tariffs. Even if it did, he said, a national trade deficit does not meet the standard of qualifying as a national emergency. Eric Hamilton, for the government, countered that the invocation of the IEEPA was not solely about the trade deficit but its “cumulative effects” on the US economy, thus justifying the Trump administration’s emergency declaration. “Over time, we’re now in a situation where the supply chain is threatened,” Hamilton said. During last week’s hearing, the judges referred to a seminal 1974 case – Yoshida International, Inc. v United States – weighing an American president’s authority when it comes to regulating tariffs under emergency powers. In the Yoshida case, an importer of Japanese zippers challenged then-US president Richard Nixon’s use of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act to declare a national emergency during a balance-of-payments crisis. Nixon had imposed a 10 per cent surcharge on all dutiable imports to boost US industry and cut the trade deficit. The Customs Court ruled the import surcharge illegal, finding that the president could regulate imports but not impose new tariffs. However, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed the decision, upholding the surcharge, and Yoshida lost the case. The case came up several times during Wednesday’s hearing. Marshall of Oregon said Yoshida illustrated the need for a balanced connection between the threat faced and the measures taken, especially when tariffs are “being used purely as leverage” rather than as a targeted response.