Amicus curiae: I am a friend of the court

Attorney Thad Guyer filed on my behalf an amicus curiae brief to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The brief, submitted yesterday, argues that Trump is acting unconstitutionally in claiming power to set tariffs. 

Congress, not the president, has the power to establish tariffs.

Normal practice is for a "friend of the court" to be a high-profile, high-prestige organization or person, perhaps the ACLU,  NAACP, The Heritage Foundation, or The New York Times. I am very much the opposite, a relative nobody, making my claim from the perspective of an individual citizen, a retiree, and a small farmer. 

Thad Guyer wrote the brief, cited the cases, made the legal and historical arguments. As we all learned in school, there are branches of government. Each has a role. The checks and balances protect us against tyranny.

A "friend of the court" filing begins with a statement of interest. I have an interest in tariffs being set by Congress, as the Constitution directs, where I have access to representatives who know the problems of vineyard owners in Southern Oregon. The tariff issue is just one of the places President Trump has overstepped, and it establishes a pattern that is metastasizing.  He ignores Congress' power of the purse. He attacks judges and ignores their rulings. He freezes funds and closes departments authorized by Congress. He uses federal agencies to extort money and to punish critics. If we can enforce the law on tariffs, it may reaffirm that the checks and balances that protect the republic are still in place. We are drawing a line.

I wrote one section of the brief, the statement of interest. Under the rules of the court, these statements are expressed in the third person, voiced by my attorney on my behalf. Here is what I wrote:

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Peter W. Sage, age 75, is a retired professional who operates a small farm and vineyard in Southern Oregon. He lives primarily on Social Security and modest personal investments, along with the hope of future income from his vineyard. He is financially vulnerable to costs imposed by tariffs affecting the equipment and supplies necessary to develop and operate his vineyard, as well as the risk of losing access to foreign markets for his wine in the event of retaliatory tariffs. 

Mr. Sage depends on a competent, merit-based federal civil service to safeguard his well-being and that of his community. He relies on the National Weather Service for accurate forecasts to protect his crops from frost damage and to provide critical data for managing and responding to regional forest fires, which at times leave his region immersed in hazardous smoke for weeks. He depends on career professionals at the Department of Health and Human Services to administer his Social Security and Medicare benefits fairly and accurately. He also relies on the integrity of financial regulators, including the SEC and the Treasury Department, to protect his investments from fraud, bank failures, and market instability. Political interference in these agencies and the courts threatens Mr. Sage’s livelihood and erodes public trust in essential governmental functions.

 

Mr. Sage relies on the constitutional structure of the United States, specifically on the separation of powers and Congress’s exclusive authority to impose tariffs, to protect his financial interests. He depends on the stability of congressional action, rather than the unilateral deal-making of an executive, to ensure a reliable supply chain and stable markets for his vineyard’s products. Congressional authority over tariffs provides him with practical access to decision makers in the House and Senate who understand and represent the needs of small agricultural producers in Southern Oregon like himself.

 

In addition to these concrete economic concerns, Mr. Sage has, for almost a decade, written about executive overreach in his political blog, Up Close with Peter Sage,* where he reports on in-person interactions with presidential candidates in New Hampshire and Iowa. Until recently, Mr. Sage’s warnings about unchecked executive power were largely theoretical. However, he now fears targeted retaliation by the President of the United States, including politically motivated IRS audits, placement on a no-fly list, interference with the naturalization status of family members, and harassment of lawfully present Hispanic workers at his vineyard. These are no longer abstract possibilities; they

have become tangible concerns in light of recent examples of executive retaliation against critics.

 

Mr. Sage notes with alarm that the Executive Department recently filed lawsuits against every District Court judge in the state of Maryland — an act that is unprecedented and demonstrates a shocking lack of respect for judicial review of executive actions. He is concerned about the erosion of boundaries and the dismantling of checks and balances. These threats are manifesting now, in real time. Each breach of constitutional boundaries, including, in this case, the circumvention of Congress’s authority over tariffs, normalizes further encroachments and weakens the framework of limited government.

Mr. Sage’s experience underscores the broader constitutional principle at stake: no individual, including the President, is above the law. When executive power is exercised without accountability, it jeopardizes not only national governance but also the personal freedoms, safety, and economic stability of ordinary Americans. For these reasons, Mr. Sage respectfully urges the Court to reaffirm the separation of powers and the foundational principle that the President is subject to the law.

* https://peterwsage.blogspot.com 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]