“Trade Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs, Citing Overreach of Authority”

A federal court has delivered a setback to President Donald Trump’s trade policy, ruling that he cannot use an emergency-powers law to levy tariffs on foreign nations. The United States Court of International Trade, consisting of a three-judge panel, unanimously determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which Trump used to single-handedly impose duties on foreign goods, does not grant the authority for such tariffs, and ordered their cessation. The ruling highlighted that the U.S. Constitution entrusts Congress with the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations.” The court questioned whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act delegates these powers to the President, allowing him to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from almost every country globally. The court concluded that it does not interpret the Act to grant such extensive authority and thus dismissed the contested tariffs. The Trump administration lodged an appeal shortly after the ruling.

Tariffs form the core of Trump’s economic strategy for his second term. The president has enforced hefty duties on goods from overseas, sparking global outrage and causing upheaval in the world economy.

Last month, Trump declared substantial reciprocal tariffs on a range of countries. However, he later put most of these on hold while trade agreements were being negotiated.

In early April, when Trump imposed the tariffs, he labeled the trade deficit as a national emergency. This, he claimed, warranted his 10% blanket tariff on all imports, with higher rates for countries that have the most significant trade deficits with the United States, especially China.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai responded to the situation, stating, “It is not the role of unelected judges to determine the appropriate response to a national emergency.” He added, “President Trump made a promise to prioritize America, and the Administration is dedicated to utilizing every aspect of executive power to tackle this crisis and reestablish American Greatness.”

The trade court’s decision marks a hindrance to Trump’s attempts to use tariffs as an economic instrument. The ruling was a result of two lawsuits, one lodged by the impartial Liberty Justice Center representing five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries affected by the duties, and the other by 13 U.S. states.

The businesses, which include a New York-based wine and spirits importer and a Virginia-based manufacturer of educational kits and musical instruments, have expressed that the tariffs will negatively impact their business operations.

In reaction to the ruling, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, expressed his discontent on social media, stating that “the judicial coup is out of control.”

On the other hand, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat leading the lawsuit filed by 13 U.S. states, labeled Trump’s tariffs as unlawful, reckless, and economically destructive.

In a statement, Rayfield emphasized the importance of the ruling, stating, “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made based on the president’s whim.”

Trump has asserted extensive power to establish tariffs under the IEEPA, a law designed to tackle “unusual and extraordinary” threats during a national emergency.

Historically, the law has been employed to enforce sanctions on U.S. adversaries or to freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to utilize it for imposing tariffs.

The Justice Department has argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs have not suffered any harm from tariffs they have not yet paid. They also argue that only Congress, not private businesses, has the authority to challenge a national emergency declared by the president under the IEEPA.

The Court of International Trade is a specialized federal court located in New York City with jurisdiction across the nation. Its rulings can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court.