My bringing up it's age was mainly about it not being used in a LONG time, so using it now would seem like a hail mary. I made no mention about current day laws, so I'm not sure where your impression came from.

Right. this whole episode is about foreign policy, why not use the act that is meant for it?

...sigh... i mean i guess it really is just about saying they _can_ do it instead of actually _trying to do it_....

I don't think it requires the courts to agree - just that there's a burden or disadvantage and that it's in the "public interest" which seems like a pretty low bar to make up a story that sounds plausible. i think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court. throw in unequal tariff rates and it seems like an easier win than the IEEPA's emergency justification.

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote:

"Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declare such new or additional rate or rates of duty as he shall determine will offset such burden or disadvantage, not to exceed 50 per centum ad valorem or its equivalent, on any products of, or on articles imported in a vessel of, such foreign country"

it does cap it at 50%, but I mean it seems like a much easier way to justify the tariff. is there something else about it that isn't as practical (other than being almost 100 years old)