A federal trade court issued a categorical repudiation of President Donald Trump’s global tariff policies Wednesday, ruling that the executive branch overstepped its bounds and lacked the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on U.S. trading partners without the input of Congress.
A panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York City issued a joint ruling for two separate lawsuits — one filed against the Trump administration by a group of small businesses, and the other by a consortium of states led by Oregon.
The Trump administration had announced sweeping tariffs on virtually all U.S. trading partners on April 2, then reduced some levies and delayed others.
The administration had argued that the federal trade deficit amounted to a national emergency, giving the president the authority to impose tariffs via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The administration also claimed that the flow of illegally trafficked drugs from China, Mexico and Canada and the influx of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. gave the administration the authority to impose tariffs on those countries.
But the federal court roundly rejected those claims in its 49-page ruling.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the ruling stated. “The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”
The court also invoked the Federalist Papers, quoting former President James Madison’s essay about the separation of government powers.
“Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President,” the court stated.
The court ruling does permit the Trump administration to impose certain tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974. However, that legislation limits tariffs to 15% for a maximum of 150 days on countries with which the U.S. has a significant trade deficit.
The ruling also did not address other specific tariffs that were imposed by the administration under a separate law, including tariffs on steel, aluminum and auto imports.
The Trump administration immediately appealed the trade court’s ruling, according to The Associated Press. The matter will next head to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., with the Supreme Court likely its final arbiter.
The court gave the administration 10 days to comply with the injunction halting the tariffs. A former official with U.S. Customs and Border Protection told the BBC that tariffs will still be collected in the meantime.
Trump allies railed against the court ruling, with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller writing on X that “we are living under a judicial tyranny.”
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told Fox Business on Thursday that he believes the ruling is merely a “little hiccup” and he’s confident it will be overturned on appeal.
“In a month or two, you are going to look ahead and see that countries have opened their markets to American products, they have lowered their non-tariff barriers, they have lowered their tariffs and all the countries that have done that are being treated very respectfully and well by U.S.,” Hassett said.
He added that countries that don’t adhere to those terms should anticipate “some form of reciprocal tariffs.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged during a press conference Thursday that the administration may pursue other means to impose tariffs.
“The president has other legal authorities where he can implement tariffs,” Leavitt said. But she maintained that the “president was right to declare a national emergency when it came to fentanyl and also when it came to our crippling deficits.”
