Published
June 01, 2026
Freedom of international trade as a central Founding-era value:
The Founders viewed the freedom to trade not merely as an economic activity, but as an essential dimension of self-government.
Among the Declaration’s grievances is the charge that Britain had “cut[] off our Trade with all parts of the world.” This was not an isolated complaint. It reflected a broader pattern of policies that denied the colonies the ability to participate freely in global markets.
Longstanding mercantilist measures like the Navigation Acts limited where Americans could buy and sell goods, channeling trade through British markets to serve imperial interests. Those restrictions gave way to more direct economic coercion in the years leading up to independence. In 1774, Parliament enacted the Boston Port Act, shutting down one of the colonies’ principal commercial hubs and halting trade as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. And in 1775, Parliament took the extraordinary step of authorizing the seizure of colonial ships and effectively severing American access to foreign trade. Taken together, these measures illustrate why the Founders viewed trade restrictions not as routine regulation, but as abuses of power that undermined liberty and self-determination.
Responding to modern attacks on freedom of trade
Today, that principle endures and continues to shape the Litigation Center’s work. Just as the Founders objected to the British government’s unilateral efforts to restrict trade and dictate the terms of economic engagement, we have challenged modern government action that unlawfully restricts American businesses’ access to the global trading system. Indeed, this work reflects a longstanding institutional commitment. From its inception, the U.S. Chamber has been an advocate for free trade, and for nearly 50 years, the Litigation Center has described its mission to include “tackling restrictive trade regulations.”
Read More in the America at 250 Series
In recent litigation over the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), we filed multiple amicus briefs reinforcing the Founders’ deliberate decision to vest tariff authority in Congress, and to permit delegation to the President only when Congress speaks clearly and imposes meaningful limits. In both the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, we explained that reading IEEPA to grant the President open-ended tariff power raises serious separation of powers concerns and threatens the predictability that businesses rely on to exercise a right the Founders fought arduously to secure: the freedom to engage in global commerce without unlawful or arbitrary government interference. And after the Supreme Court held that the tariffs were invalid, we filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade supporting American businesses’ right to quickly recover the funds unlawfully taken from them.
Our work in this area builds on a longer history of defending the Constitution’s allocation of authority over trade. In the late 1990s, the Litigation Center supported a challenge to Massachusetts’s “Burma Law,” which barred state agencies from purchasing goods and services from companies doing business with the Union of Myanmar. We argued that this kind of “selective purchasing” statute intruded on the federal government’s authority over foreign affairs, violated the foreign commerce clause, and undermined the Supremacy Clause.
Looking ahead
The throughline is clear: the ability to participate in global markets depends not only on formal access, but on the existence of stable, lawful, and transparent rules governing trade. Consistent with both the Constitution and the enduring principles reflected in our Declaration of Independence, the Litigation Center will continue working to keep trade policy grounded in the rule of law.
Read More in the Series
About the author
Daryl Joseffer
Daryl Joseffer is president at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A former principal deputy solicitor general, Joseffer has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and briefed many more. He has argued dozens of appeals in other courts across the country.
