Court Blocks Trump Tariffs, Sparks Legal Uncertainty \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal court has struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, ruling he misused emergency powers to bypass Congress. The decision adds to a growing list of legal setbacks challenging Trump’s expansive view of executive authority. While appeals are underway, the ruling complicates Trump’s broader economic agenda.
Quick Looks
- New York court blocks Trump’s emergency-based tariffs.
- Judges say 1977 law misused to bypass congressional authority.
- White House vows to appeal, seeks alternative legal pathways.
- Ruling follows pattern of legal rebukes on executive overreach.
- Some tariffs, like those on steel and autos, remain intact.
- White House exploring Section 232 and other legal tools.
- Experts warn of fragile legal grounding for Trump’s policies.
- Advisors claim courts undermine Trump’s negotiation leverage.
- Markets rattled, legal appeals pending as uncertainty rises.
- Analysts say Trump overestimates presidential power in policy-making.
Deep Look
Federal Court Blocks Trump Tariffs, Casting Doubt on Sweeping Use of Executive Power
President Donald Trump’s bold attempt to reengineer global trade policy through sweeping tariffs has hit a legal wall, as a federal court in New York ruled Wednesday that his administration overstepped its authority by using a decades-old emergency powers law to justify unilateral import taxes.
In a scathing decision, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade—including appointees from the Reagan, Obama, and Trump eras—unanimously found that the president’s reliance on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address trade imbalances and fentanyl smuggling was unconstitutional. The ruling declared that Trump’s actions amounted to an executive overreach, circumventing Congress’s exclusive power over taxation.
The decision dismantles the legal underpinning of Trump’s most aggressive tariffs and adds to a growing list of judicial rebukes challenging the limits of his executive authority.
Legal Blow Reflects Broader Pattern of Executive Overreach
This latest setback is part of a recurring theme in Trump’s presidency: bold, unilateral moves that stumble under legal scrutiny. Courts have previously blocked aspects of his deportation strategy, halted attempts to drastically cut the federal workforce, and posed fiscal constraints on his proposed income tax cuts due to budgetary concerns. Similarly, efforts to punish Harvard University over alleged political bias and international student policies have faced judicial resistance.
Now, Trump’s sweeping trade initiative, once branded “Liberation Day tariffs,” is unraveling under the weight of judicial oversight.
“The president is trying to accomplish goals outside the normal legal process and without building broader public support,” said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University history professor. “The courts are simply reasserting constitutional limits.”
White House Reacts With Defiance and Delay Tactics
In response to the ruling, the White House filed notice of appeal and requested an emergency stay to allow continued tariff collection during ongoing litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals granted a temporary reprieve, enabling the administration to maintain tariffs under the IEEPA for now—though refunds may be required if the ruling is upheld.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said officials remain confident they will prevail in court and hinted that alternative statutes could be used to reinstate tariffs legally.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett echoed Trump’s defiant tone, calling the court ruling a delay tactic.
“There are hats in the West Wing that say ‘Trump Always Wins,’ and that’s the energy we bring to every challenge,” Hassett said on Fox Business. “These activist judges are slowing down crucial negotiations.”
Trade adviser Peter Navarro went further, accusing the judiciary of blocking Trump’s mission.
“The courts are engaged in attacks on the American people,” Navarro told Bloomberg. “The president ran to stop fentanyl and protect jobs. Courts keep standing in the way.”
Tariffs and the Constitution: A Tense Balance
Trump’s tariffs aimed to close trade deficits and generate revenue to offset the costs of his proposed tax cuts. Initially set at up to 50%, many of the tariffs were later reduced to 10% after financial markets reacted negatively and bond yields spiked.
Trump later admitted the policy shift came after the markets got “yippy,” undercutting Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had claimed the tariff pause was part of a larger negotiating strategy.
The court ruling does not affect earlier tariffs on autos, aluminum, and steel, which were implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 based on national security grounds. However, the court emphasized that using IEEPA to unilaterally impose broad tariffs with minimal oversight is legally unsustainable.
“What’s unprecedented here,” said Peter Harrell of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “is using a law like IEEPA, never intended for trade policy, to enact the largest tariffs since the 1930s.”
Harrell said the administration could still use laws like the Trade Act of 1974, but doing so would require investigations, public comment periods, and interagency collaboration—steps that Trump often tries to avoid.
Presidential Power Versus Institutional Limits
Trump’s governance style—marked by improvisation and a belief in personal authority—clashes with the constitutional framework of checks and balances, say experts.
Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University, argued that Trump’s approach to governance reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the presidency.
“He treats the office like he’s the sole source of power,” Brinkley said. “But in our system, power flows from the Constitution and the institutions it created—not the personality in the Oval Office.”
Brinkley warned that ignoring court rulings, or challenging their legitimacy, sets a dangerous precedent. “It’s anti-American to act as if judges are errand boys. It’s telling the country that the president is above the law.”
Uncertain Path Forward
Though Trump still has some legal avenues to pursue, the path to reinstating tariffs is now far more complex. Creating new tariffs would require time-consuming legal processes that run counter to his preference for rapid, unilateral action.
Meanwhile, businesses and international partners are watching closely. Some fear that continuing legal battles will undercut investment confidence and slow trade negotiations.
While Trump maintains that his tariffs are necessary to protect American jobs and combat illicit drug imports, critics argue that the legal, economic, and constitutional costs may outweigh any gains.
As courts continue to block or delay his most ambitious plans, Trump faces a choice: adapt to the constraints of American law—or challenge them head-on, risking constitutional crisis in the process.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.