Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Overstepped Authority with Tariff Policies
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled on Friday that Donald Trump exceeded his presidential authority with many of his far-reaching tariff policies.
In a 7-4 decision, the court stated that while U.S. law grants the president broad powers during a declared national emergency, those powers do not explicitly include the authority to impose tariffs, duties, or similar taxes.
The court further criticized many of Trump’s steep tariffs as “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration,” arguing that they represent a broad assertion of authority that exceeds the clear limits set by the law his administration relied upon. The ruling marks the most significant legal challenge to Trump’s tariff policies to date and could ultimately force the Supreme Court to decide whether a president has the legal power to unilaterally reshape U.S. trade policy. The decision is set to take effect on October 14.
“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!” Trump declared on social media shortly after the ruling was issued, following the close of U.S. stock markets ahead of the Labor Day weekend. In a lengthy post, he accused the appeals court of political bias.
“If allowed to stand, this decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote. “At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”
The ruling struck down Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, which imposed a 10% baseline on nearly all of America’s trading partners, along with his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs aimed at countries he claimed had treated the U.S. unfairly.
Trump has argued that he had the authority to impose these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that grants the president certain powers to regulate or block international transactions during a declared national emergency. However, the court found that those powers do not extend to imposing tariffs.
The Trump administration justified its tariff actions by citing a range of national emergencies, including trade deficits with foreign partners, fentanyl trafficking, and immigration concerns. However, a coalition of small businesses challenged these claims, arguing that the tariffs were “devastating small businesses across the country.”
On Friday, the appellate court sided with the challengers, stating: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”
The court also noted that U.S. law “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor includes procedural safeguards that clearly limit the president’s power to impose tariffs.”
Earlier on Friday, Bloomberg reported that the administration, anticipating a possible unfavorable ruling, submitted statements from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The officials warned that an immediate invalidation of the tariffs would pose a “dangerous diplomatic embarrassment” for the United States.
In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended Trump’s actions, saying the former president “lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign threats.”
“The president’s tariffs remain in effect,” he added, “and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter.”
William Reinsch, a former senior Commerce Department official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Reuters that the Trump administration had been preparing for this ruling. “It’s common knowledge the administration has been anticipating this outcome and is preparing a Plan B, presumably to keep the tariffs in place through other statutes,” he said.
The U.S. trade court originally heard the case—VOS Selections Inc v. Trump—in May and ruled that the tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the president.” However, the court allowed a temporary pause on the decision while the appeal was being considered.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., heard oral arguments on the case on July 31. During the hearing, judges expressed skepticism toward the administration’s claims. “The IEEPA doesn’t even say ‘tariffs,’” one judge remarked. “It doesn’t even mention them.”
In its ruling, the appeals court highlighted that there are “numerous statutes” explicitly granting the power to impose tariffs, using “clear and precise terms” to do so.
When Congress intends to delegate such authority, it typically does so explicitly—either by using unequivocal language like “tariff” and “duty” or through an overall legal framework that clearly refers to tariffs, the court explained.
The court noted, “The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power.”
Trump’s tariffs have sparked economic and political uncertainty worldwide and fueled concerns over rising inflation.
Appeals court decision tariffs, Trump tariffs ruling, Presidential tariff authority, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump trade policies, US tariff legal challenge, Supreme Court tariff case, Court overrules Trump tariffs, Tariff powers presidential limits, US trade policy ruling.
(NB: All news collected from different online platforms)
0 Reviews:
Post a Comment