(The Center Square) – In less than six months, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed opposing the policies of the second Trump administration – many of which have been brought by immigration advocacy groups, labor unions, minority advocacy groups and Democratic state leaders. But a case opposing President Donald Trump’s tariffs is strongly bipartisan and even leans conservative.

Alongside briefs from nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress and two research centers at New York University were briefs from the libertarian Cato Institute, the Goldwater Institute and Advancing American Freedom, a nonprofit founded by former Trump Vice President Mike Pence. 

One came from a group of economists of varying political backgrounds yet united in their conviction that higher tariffs will only harm the economy. The group included a number of scholars from free-market think tank the American Enterprise Institute, as well as economists from Harvard and Stanford universities and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

AEI Senior Fellow in Economic Policy Studies Stan Veuger outlined the brief and brought the signatories together.

“I thought this was a valuable cause because the tariffs have had and will continue to have a very negative impact on the U.S. economy and our geopolitical position, by destroying all manner of mutually beneficial exchanges, raising the prices of inputs for firms, jeopardizing our friendship with Canada of all places,” Veuger told The Center Square in an email. “The longer they remain in place, the more damage they will do.”

The administration says the opposite. Though Trump has yet to impose the reciprocal tariffs at the heart of this case, the U.S. has levied a baseline 10% tariff on nearly all imports, 25% tariffs on most goods from Canada and Mexico and 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum, per several of his executive orders.

“Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in Tariffs are filling up the coffers of Treasury. The Tariff money has already arrived and is setting new records!” the president wrote on Truth Social in early July. “We are growing our way out of the Sleepy Joe Biden MESS that he and the Democrats left us, and it is happening much faster than anyone thought possible.”

The president has repeatedly talked about the revenue tariffs generate and how it will help balance or exceed any amount the Congressional Budget Office said the ‘one big, beautiful’ budget bill would add to the national debt. 

In fact, the U.S. Department of the Treasury last week said that revenue from the tariffs helped the federal government show a $27 billion surplus in June, The Center Square reported.

Because tariffs are a tax on imported goods and the Constitution gives Congress the authority to tax and spend, critics argue the president doesn’t have the authority to administer such wide-ranging tariffs. The administration argues that Congress delegates broad powers to the president, including tariffs, “in the domains of foreign policy and national security,” especially in the case of a national emergency. 

“Since 1941, Congress has authorized the President to ‘regulate importation’ of foreign goods whenever he declares a national emergency,” the defendants wrote in a motion to the court. 

Trump declared national emergencies in his executive orders introducing new tariffs. 

“I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States,” reads Executive Order 14257. “I hereby declare a national emergency.”

In their brief, the economists take issue with Trump’s view of trade deficits as inherently harmful. A trade deficit occurs any time a country imports more than it exports from another country – whether of a specific good, like bananas or computer chips, or overall. 

“The unequal distribution of trade across trading partners and sectors is mostly a consequence of efficient specialization,” they wrote. “Trade deficits are not only usual and ordinary, they are also generally harmless and not a ‘threat to the national security and economy of the United States.’”

While they acknowledge “trade deficits in particular industries could pose a threat to the United States,” they added that “such a threat would be industry- and perhaps country-specific and cannot be measured simply in dollars or percentages of a trade deficit.”

Trump has promised countries with companies that come to the U.S. to build or manufacture products that there won’t be any country-specific tariffs imposed on them as part of his plan to restore manufacturing jobs and lessen America’s dependence on other countries. 

Moreover, they argue, tariffs won’t “reduce the overall trade deficit.”

Samuel Gregg, president of the American Institute for Economic Research and one of the brief’s signatories, said tariffs actually hurt the country imposing them just as much as the country subject to them.

“We often think of tariffs as being directed against and hurting the economic conditions of countries that they are directed against. But they hurt us just as much,” he said in an interview with The Center Square. “When you put tariffs on goods coming into the United States, you effectively increase the price because the businesses that are paying for the tariffs – they pass the costs onto consumers.”

“American consumers lose out every time tariffs are imposed upon another country’s imports … It hurts all 330 million American consumers.”

Gregg sees tariffs not only as economically harmful but politically damaging as well, further entangling corporate and government interests in ways that invite corruption.

“Tariffs encourage cronyism on the part of American businesses because when a tariff regime is put into place, businesses, especially large businesses, will lobby very hard for exemptions,” Gregg said. “They will also lobby for tariffs to be imposed upon particular types of goods that are entering the United States … to effectively deploy the power of the federal government against competitors from abroad.”

Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law, told The Center Square in an email why she thinks economists of different political persuasions can find common ground on tariffs.  

“Economists from throughout the political spectrum agree that tariffs are a particularly harmful tax since they are distortionary, regressive, and prone to abuse,” she said. 

Tariff revenue has reached a record high, bringing in more than $100 billion this fiscal year.  

The U.S. Court of International Trade found Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs to be unlawful, but the government appealed the case and it is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

(The Center Square) – Fifty-two of 104 vetoes in North Carolina’s last gubernatorial administration were overturned by the General Assembly.

Tests for first-term Democratic Gov. Josh Stein are on the way. He issued 14 in 20 days, and more than once Republican chamber leaders and their legions pledged overrides. Immigration policy is definitely a disagreement for the former top prosecutor in the state with history of multiple litigations filed against lawmakers and refusals to back them.

“Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill backs North Carolina law enforcement that works with ICE,” said Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, of the House of Representatives. But the governor “wants North Carolina to be left behind. The House will override his open border vetoes ASAP so we can make our state safer.”

The Criminal Illegal Alien Enforcement Act (House Bill 318) and North Carolina Border Protection Act (Senate Bill 153) were two vetoes from the former state attorney general.

“One of the main ways ICE does its job is in local jails,” Hall said. “So, when people are here illegally and they’re charged with crimes, ICE works with local sheriffs to detain and then deport those folks. Unfortunately, in our state right now, we have a small number of sheriffs who are completely refusing to cooperate with ICE, as insane as that may sound.

“So, we’ve taken action here at the General Assembly. We passed a bill making it clear sheriffs have to cooperate with ICE.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, has had similar statements from the upper chamber.

“He’d rather prioritize his far-left donors and their dangerous open-border policies over the citizens of North Carolina who are desperately pleading for us to put an end to the illegal immigration crisis,” Berger said of Stein. “I look forward to the Senate overriding his veto.”

The Criminal Illegal Alien Enforcement Act enhances cooperation with lawmen in the state and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Local law enforcement could not release the suspect until 48 hours after ICE is notified.

Litigation is anticipated if the override happens.

“I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released,” Stein said in his veto message. “The 4th Circuit is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation.”

The North Carolina Border Protection Act would give protection to taxpayer dollars through eligibility assurances for state-funded public benefits such as housing tax credits, child care subsidies and caregiver support. The Office of State Budget and Management, if the bill becomes law, would determine if unauthorized immigrants are receiving such benefits.

The North Carolina Border Protection Act would instruct memorandums of agreement to be extended to the director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from the state’s law enforcement agencies – Department of Public Safety, Department of Adult Correction, State Highway Patrol, and the State Bureau of Investigation. Each would be lawfully ordered to determine immigration status of any person in custody.

“Senate Bill 153 would make us less safe,” Stein said. “At a time when our law enforcement is already stretched thin, this bill takes state law enforcement officers away from their existing state duties and forces them to act as federal immigration agents. Furthermore, under current law, people without lawful immigration status already are prevented from receiving Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8 and other benefits.”

In response, Hall said in a statement, “Governor Stein has made one thing clear today: he stands with criminal illegal aliens and the most radical elements of his party’s base over the safety and security of North Carolinians. Make no mistake, the NC House will override the Governor’s veto at the earliest opportunity.”

Overturning a gubernatorial veto requires three-fifths majority in each chamber. Republican majorities are 30-20 in the Senate and 71-49 in the House. Rep. Carla Cunningham, D-Mecklenburg, was the lone member of her party in either chamber to support either bill, providing an aye on the Criminal Illegal Alien Enforcement Act.

(The Center Square) – A Pennsylvania company boasting the reach of 1 billion patients annually and twice consecutively recognized by TIME magazine’s most sustainable companies list is paying nine states more than a quarter-billion dollars over the next years.

The settlement state prosecutors say “worsened the nationwide opioid crisis” will yield $23 million to North Carolina. Mylan, now a part of Viatris, owns a $284,447,916 share of the $720 million going to the Tarheel State, California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.

As part of the deal, some states can get free pharmaceutical products instead of cash. Seven companies in the deal are “prohibited from promoting or marketing opioids and opioid products, making or selling any product that contains more than 40 mg of oxycodone per pill, and are required to put in place a monitoring and reporting system for suspicious orders. Indivior has agreed to not manufacture or sell opioid products for the next 10 years, but it will be able to continue marketing and selling medications to treat opioid use disorder.”

North Carolina is sending 85% of the settlements to local governments.

The companies and their amount owed to all states collectively are Mylan (now part of Viatris), $284,447,916 paid over nine years; Hikma, $95,818,293 paid over one to four years; Amneal, $71,751,010 paid over 10 years; Apotex, $63,682,369 paid in a single year; Indivior, $38,022,450 paid over four years; Sun, $30,992,087 paid over one to four years; Alvogen, $18,680,162 paid in a single year; and Zydus, $14,859,220 paid in a single year.

“These companies didn’t do enough to prevent misuse of the addictive opioids they manufactured and helped push us into the nationwide opioid crisis that continues to take lives in North Carolina every day,” said first-term Democratic Attorney General Jeff Jackson. “Today’s settlements hold them accountable for hurting the people of our state and give us resources to help people struggling with addiction.”