A federal appeals court has ruled that a large portion of former President Donald Trump’s global tariff program is unlawful, striking a major blow to one of his administration’s most sweeping economic policies.
In a 7–4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld an earlier ruling by the Court of International Trade, declaring that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he used it to impose blanket tariffs on foreign goods. The judges wrote that while the statute gives presidents certain emergency powers in the face of “unusual and extraordinary” threats, it does not extend to the unilateral creation of taxes on imports. They emphasized that the Constitution vests such powers with Congress and that delegations to the executive must be clearly defined. “None of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs,” the court noted, underscoring that trade deficits and migration flows did not qualify as the type of emergencies envisioned by IEEPA.
The decision specifically targets Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, announced in April 2025, which placed a 50 percent ceiling on imports from countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and a baseline 10 percent tariff on others. It also affects his earlier “trafficking tariffs” of February 2025, which singled out China, Mexico, and Canada under claims of drug trafficking and immigration concerns. The court found that these measures stretched the definition of an emergency well beyond legal precedent, noting that longstanding economic challenges cannot be repackaged as sudden crises.
Despite the ruling, the tariffs will remain in effect until at least October 14. The court granted a temporary stay to allow the administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for what could become a landmark case on the limits of executive authority in economic policymaking.
The ruling has drawn strong reactions across the political spectrum. Trump blasted the court as “highly partisan” and warned that dismantling the tariffs would “literally destroy the United States.” He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would overturn the ruling, framing the case as a battle over American sovereignty. The White House defended the tariffs as a lawful extension of presidential authority and vowed to pursue every available legal channel to preserve them. Legal scholars, however, see the ruling as a sharp rebuke to executive overreach and a reassertion of Congress’s constitutional role in setting taxation and trade policy.
For businesses and trading partners, the decision introduces a wave of uncertainty. Companies that have been adjusting supply chains around the tariffs are now forced to wait for clarity, while international markets watch closely for potential reversals. Some analysts argue that if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court’s decision, the administration may attempt to revive elements of the tariff program under other statutes, such as the Trade Act of 1974, though such a move would likely invite new political and legal challenges.
Beyond immediate economic impacts, the case carries far-reaching constitutional significance. Trump was the first president to invoke IEEPA to impose tariffs, a tool historically reserved for freezing assets or imposing targeted sanctions. By striking down this approach, the court not only curtails Trump’s trade program but also places firm limits on how future presidents may attempt to leverage emergency powers for economic agendas.
As the October deadline approaches, attention will shift to the Supreme Court, where the justices may be asked to draw new boundaries between congressional and executive authority. The outcome could redefine the balance of power over U.S. trade policy for decades to come.
English