Business
US Appeals Court Rules Against Trump’s Use of Emergency Powers for Sweeping Tariffs
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday ruled that former President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when he declared national emergencies to justify sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every country. The 7-4 decision marks a significant legal setback for Trump’s trade agenda, though it allows his administration time to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
The ruling largely upheld a May decision by the US Court of International Trade in New York, which found that Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded presidential authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The tariffs, first imposed in April, levied up to 50 percent duties on countries with trade surpluses with the US, and 10 percent baseline tariffs on nearly all other trading partners.
Trump had defended the measures as necessary to combat what he called a “national emergency” stemming from decades of trade deficits. He later extended the rationale to tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, linking the measures to border security concerns, including illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
The appeals court, however, rejected the administration’s argument, noting that Congress had not intended to grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs under emergency powers. “It seems unlikely that Congress intended to… grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the majority opinion stated.
The decision does not affect other tariffs Trump imposed under different legal frameworks, including duties on steel, aluminum, autos, and the China-specific tariffs that President Joe Biden has since maintained. But it casts doubt on the durability of Trump’s broader strategy of using emergency powers to bypass Congress on trade policy.
Trump has vowed to appeal, warning on his social media platform that if the decision stands, it would “literally destroy the United States of America.” His administration has argued that striking down the tariffs could force the government to refund billions in collected duties. By July, tariff revenue had reached $159 billion—more than double the amount collected at the same point a year earlier.
Analysts say the ruling could weaken Washington’s negotiating leverage. “The administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands or even seek to renegotiate terms,” said Ashley Akers, senior counsel at law firm Holland & Knight and a former Justice Department trial lawyer.
While Trump retains authority to impose more limited tariffs under other statutes, such as the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, those powers are narrower and require additional procedures, such as Commerce Department investigations.
For now, the appeals court decision raises uncertainty about the future of US trade policy—and whether Trump’s expansive approach to presidential power will survive Supreme Court scrutiny.
-
Entertainment2 years agoMeta Acquires Tilda Swinton VR Doc ‘Impulse: Playing With Reality’
-
Business2 years agoSaudi Arabia’s Model for Sustainable Aviation Practices
-
Business2 years agoRecent Developments in Small Business Taxes
-
Home Improvement1 year agoEffective Drain Cleaning: A Key to a Healthy Plumbing System
-
Politics2 years agoWho was Ebrahim Raisi and his status in Iranian Politics?
-
Sports2 years agoChina’s Historic Olympic Victory Sparks National Pride Amid Controversy
-
Business2 years agoCarrectly: Revolutionizing Car Care in Chicago
-
Sports2 years agoKeely Hodgkinson Wins Britain’s First Athletics Gold at Paris Olympics in 800m
