The trade war that Donald Trump has launched could be ended shortly, even at the end of this month – without even having the US president’s goal of gaining concessions from dozens of US trade partners.

In essence, the outcome of Trump’s duty war will be largely judged in the hall of the US International Commerce Court, a relatively unknown federal court based in New York and deals with cases related to commercial and customs law, where he is currently in charge.

In a few hours, the arguments of the plaintiffs who challenge Trump’s use of the 1977 international economic power law on the basis of which the US president enforced sweeping new duties in April – for approximately 60 days later.

If the Court accepts the request of the plaintiffs to issue an urgent order for the removal of duties, it could overturn the negotiations of US trade relations that the Trump government is struggling with dozens of countries.

The Trump government has imposed a 10% horizontal duty on imports from all over the world and additional tariffs of up to 50% on a long list of US trade partners (which it “frozen” after) as well as high duties of 145% in China, although it was announced by 90% before a 30%. concluding a more balanced trade relationship between the two countries.

The President and his financial staff, in order to justify the imposition of duties, argue that the country’s growing trade deficit with the rest of the world is equivalent to a “national emergency that threatens our safety and our own lifestyle”. The office of the US Commercial Representative refused to comment on the issue on Monday, as Politico notes.

The duty of duties, for their part, argue that Trump violates the Constitution and hope that the Court of Justice will accept their request for a temporary order before the end of the month.

This is a matter of vital, because many businesses may not survive if duties remain in force while the case may reach the US Supreme Court, notes Jeffrey Svab, a senior consultant at Liberty Justice Center, a group of conservatives of the Vos Selections and Constitutional Rights. Based in New York, and other small businesses that have suffered lawsuits against Trump’s duties.

The issuance of a temporary order by the court would also endanger Trump’s efforts to use the threat of further “mutual” duties on specific countries in order to force them to indulge in new trade agreements.

He announced the first of these agreements on Thursday with the United Kingdom, if there are still many details. Trump’s staff also negotiated an agreement with China to de -duties and the creation of a bilateral mechanism to resolve the long -term trade disputes between the two countries.

Trump also cited “reasons for national emergency” for immigrants and fentanyl to justify a previous round of tariffs in China, as well as 25% duties in Canada and Mexico, who have also been largely suspended. The VOS case, however, only disputes the mutual duties announced by Trump on April 2.

The Coalition for a prosperous America, a group representing producers in favor of protectionism from imports, praised Trump’s decision to use the emergency law to implement the trade agenda, which he described as “a bold and long -awaited system”.

However, critics of duties, such as Republican former Senator John Danfoth (Missouri), argue that Trump uses a looming excuse to usurp the tax and commercial powers that the founders of the Fathers provided to Congress.

“It is really the biggest issue our country has faced since its establishment,” Danford said in an interview. “It is about the concentration of power and James Madison’s intention to distribute power to various parts of the government.”

Danfoth, along with former Republican Senators George Allen (Virginia) and Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) as well as others, such as former Attorney General Michael Makassi, have filed a memoir for the case. It prevents the government from collecting duties as long as the lawsuits are heard.

“Since the establishment of democracy, the power of imposition of duties – as well as that of taxes – belongs exclusively to Congress,” the memorandum said. “This is not something typical. This nation was “born” based on the motto ” no tax without representation ”, which means that the power of taxation, increased revenue and shaping public obligations of the public must be exercised by the elected representatives of the people. “

“The argument in our case … is involved in the essence of the issue,” Danfoth said. “It has nothing to do with the feasibility of duties or a matter of legislation. It is a matter of constitution. It concerns the question ” if the president can ‘expropriate’ [από το Κογκρέσο] Tax power? ” But would I add control of external trade. ‘

Allen, who also served as Virginia’s ruler from 1994 to 1998, stresses that he wholeheartedly supports Trump’s actions related to energy, border safety and deregulation, but is a red line to provide the president of power to impose “taxes” unilaterally.

“The issue concerns the observance and respect of the explicit, fully justified principle of the Constitution that taxation must be determined by Congress,” Allen notes. “My position is based on my conscience as a conservative. I am in favor of constitutional protection of freedom of people and businesses, not persons or hypocritical principles. “

Svab, the chief lawyer in the VOS case, who is being tried in the Court of Justice on Tuesday, expressed the conviction that the court would convince the arguments of the plaintiffs.

Basically, “we do not believe that the Law on International Emergency Emergency Emergency authorizes the president to decide or impose duties,” Schbab explains, as many claim, as no previous president has used this law in this way.

“But even if the law allows for duties, it is not clear that it allows the duties it imposes,” he adds, explaining that they are extremely expanded and are not an answer to any particular event or international development.

The plaintiffs also dispute Trump’s claim that the “excessive and persistent annual trade deficit” is a state of emergency for the country that justifies the imposition of duties, as the United States has been a commercial deficit for 50 years. Which means that Congress had plenty of time at its disposal to take action if it was necessary, Svab notes.

They also cite some more technical legal arguments, such as the “doctrine of big questions”, which requires clearly by law by Congress when an act of executive power exceeds an indefinite limit of “economic and political significance”, as is the case – with their duties.

Another argument, in part, concerns the “doctrine of non -power”, which essentially states that Congress cannot grant powers to executive power without at the same time imposing some restrictions on their exercise.

“Here, essentially what the Trump government is saying is that it has the power to impose duties without any supervision and can do so at whatever pace it wants, whenever it wants,” Svab notes. ‘We believe that if the court interpreted so [τον νόμο, θα αποφάσιζε] That is unconstitutional. “

In its own memorandum, the US Department of Justice is largely based on a 50 -year -old court decision that allowed then US President Nixon to impose broad duties based on a similar wording of the Enemy’s trade law, replaced by law.

Since then, the courts have been more reluctant to adopt an undoubtedly ambiguous wording for the granting of wide spectrum powers. But Thomas Belin, a partner at Cassidy Levy Kent, argues that the Court of Justice could accept many of the government’s arguments.

“One of the things I come back to the law on international economic emergency is that it does not contain any prohibition that says the president cannot use his power for this purpose. On the contrary, he predicts a wide range of actions that the president can do, “Belin adds.

In addition, Congress maintains the power to end a national state of emergency declared by the US president, if it considers it appropriate. This allows the court to claim that “this is the right balance of powers that has set the Congress,” Belin said.

Svab, for his part, argues that the most “shocking” point in the argument of the Ministry of Justice is the claim that Trump’s actions fall into the “doctrine of the political issue”, which means that they are not even subject to justice control.

“Obviously, if the president may declare a national emergency situation whenever he wants, without any judicial supervision, then the essentially exerted authoritarian control,” Schbab notes, even if he is not the ultimate goal of the Ministry of Justice.

The two Republican former senators in the meantime have expressed their frustration that only a few Republicans have joined the Democrats in an attempt to reaffirm that only Congress has the power to decide on the terms of trade.

“I would like to see members of Congress defend their privileges. Because this clearly defines the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, ”notes Allen.

Otherwise “why is it in Congress?” Danford wonders. “What can they really do besides showing the news releases?”