Federal Appeals Court Finds Trump’s Tariffs Unconstitutional, Illegal/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed under emergency powers were unlawful. However, the tariffs will remain in place until at least mid-October, giving the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case marks a major challenge to Trump’s sweeping protectionist trade agenda and could reshape executive authority over tariffs.
Quick Look: Trump Tariffs Declared Illegal But Left In Place
- Ruling: Appeals court says Trump overstepped under 1977 IEEPA law.
- Effect: Tariffs remain until mid-October while appeal possible.
- Scale: $159 billion collected in tariffs now at stake.
- Arguments: Courts say trade deficits don’t justify an “emergency.”
- Impact: Businesses may eventually see refunds if tariffs struck down.
- White House stance: Trump vows Supreme Court appeal, calls ruling devastating.
- Criticism: Experts warn tariffs destabilize trade and hurt consumers.
- Congress: Lawmakers urged to reclaim constitutional authority over tariffs.
Deep Look: Trump’s Tariffs Deemed Illegal Under Emergency Powers
Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Legal Justification
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump lacked legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner. The court concluded in a 7-4 decision that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to levy import taxes overstepped presidential authority.
The judges wrote: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended to grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.” Still, the court stopped short of immediately canceling the tariffs, leaving them in place until mid-October to allow for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump Vows to Appeal
In a social media post, Trump blasted the decision as catastrophic: “If allowed to stand, this decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”
White House spokesman Kush Desai added that the president acted lawfully and the administration was confident it would prevail in the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Pam Bondi also criticized the ruling, accusing judges of interfering in presidential authority on foreign policy.
Tariffs That Sparked the Legal Battle
The case centered on two specific sets of tariffs:
- “Liberation Day” Tariffs (April 2, 2025): Trump imposed “reciprocal” tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits, along with a baseline 10% tariff on virtually all other imports. These tariffs went into effect in August.
- “Trafficking Tariffs” (February 1, 2025): Targeted imports from Canada, China, and Mexico to address what Trump declared a national emergency: drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
While past presidents have used IEEPA for sanctions or export restrictions, Trump was the first to claim it provided unlimited tariff authority.
Financial and Economic Stakes
The ruling could have far-reaching implications. The tariffs have generated $159 billion in revenue for the Treasury — more than double last year’s amount. The Justice Department has warned that striking them down might force the government to issue refunds to businesses, creating what it called potential “financial ruin” for the U.S.
Critics say the tariffs have disrupted global markets, alienated U.S. allies, and driven up costs for American consumers. Jake Colvin, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, argued that Congress must reclaim its constitutional role in regulating duties to provide stability.
Political and Business Reaction
- Liberty Justice Center attorney Jeffrey Schwab: The ruling proves Trump cannot impose tariffs without limits, protecting businesses from uncertainty.
- Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden: Pledged to push repeals of what he calls regressive taxes.
- Trade attorney Ryan Majerus: Warned businesses will rush to seek refunds if the tariffs fall.
Business groups remain cautious, saying real effects won’t be seen unless the Supreme Court upholds the lower court rulings.
Alternative Tariff Powers Still Available
Even if the IEEPA ruling stands, Trump has other, though more limited, tools:
- Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows tariffs up to 15% for 150 days on countries with large trade deficits.
- Section 301 of the 1974 Act: Permits tariffs after unfair trade practices are confirmed. Trump previously used this authority during his first-term trade war with China.
However, these mechanisms lack the sweeping scope of Trump’s current tariffs.
Historical Context
The administration cited President Richard Nixon’s 1971 emergency tariffs under the Trading With the Enemy Act as precedent. But courts found the comparison unconvincing, noting that the trade deficit hardly constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary” threat under IEEPA’s requirements.
The appeals court ruling largely upheld a May 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which consolidated challenges from states and businesses.
Looking Forward
The Trump administration is almost certain to appeal to the Supreme Court before the October deadline. If the justices side with the lower courts, Trump’s signature economic policy could collapse — a major shift for U.S. trade and executive power.
Meanwhile, businesses, consumers, and trading partners are left in limbo. Should the tariffs ultimately be struck down, it could trigger massive refund claims and reshape America’s global economic relationships.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.