🅑🅨 🅚🅐🅩🅘 🅕🅐🅗🅢🅘🅝, Washington, D.C. – August 31, 2025
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down one of the central pillars of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda, ruling that his sweeping use of tariffs under emergency powers is largely unlawful. The decision, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., represents a stunning rebuke of the administration’s trade strategy and sets the stage for a consequential Supreme Court battle.
In a 7–4 ruling, the court determined that Trump exceeded the authority granted to him under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the 1977 law his administration had cited to justify new tariffs. While the law allows presidents to respond to national security threats in emergencies, the court found that tariff powers rest squarely with Congress.
“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency,” the majority opinion stated. “But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”
Judges described the president’s tariffs as “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration,” ruling they went far beyond what the law permits.
The decision specifically struck down two major tariff initiatives of 2025: the so-called “trafficking tariffs” imposed on February 1 against China, Canada, and Mexico, and the “reciprocal tariffs” unveiled April 2, a day Trump labeled “Liberation Day.” However, tariffs imposed under other laws such as the steel and aluminum duties or first-term China tariffs remain unaffected.
The White House responded defiantly. On his Truth Social platform, Trump called the ruling “highly partisan” and vowed to appeal, writing:
“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country… with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!”
Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the Justice Department will immediately take the case to the Supreme Court. A White House spokesperson insisted Trump had acted within his powers and expressed confidence in an eventual victory.
For now, the tariffs remain in place. The appeals court stayed its own ruling until October 14 to allow time for appeal, averting what the Justice Department warned could be “financial ruin” if the U.S. were forced to refund trillions already collected from businesses and importers.
The legal challenge was brought by a coalition of states and small businesses, many of whom argued the tariffs were unconstitutional and devastating to their industries. Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, which represented several plaintiffs, hailed the outcome: “This decision protects American businesses and consumers from the uncertainty and harm caused by these unlawful tariffs.”
The ruling strikes at the heart of Trump’s second-term economic doctrine, which has leaned heavily on tariffs as leverage in negotiations over trade, immigration, and narcotics trafficking. The aggressive approach has triggered retaliatory measures abroad, rattled markets, and raised fears of higher consumer costs at home.
If upheld by the Supreme Court, the decision could permanently restrict presidential powers in trade policy, restoring much of that authority to Congress and forcing the Trump administration to recalibrate its economic playbook.
Related Q&A
Q1: What did the court rule against Trump’s tariffs?
A1: The court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by using emergency powers under IEEPA to impose tariffs, which legally fall under Congress’s control.
Q2: Which tariffs are affected?
A2: The decision specifically blocks Trump’s 2025 “trafficking tariffs” and “reciprocal tariffs,” but not earlier duties imposed under different laws.
Q3: Are tariffs still in effect now?
A3: Yes. The court stayed its ruling until October 14, keeping the tariffs in place while the administration appeals.
Post a Comment