Appeals Court Issues Decision On Trump’s Tariff Policy
In a striking legal turn that revives a central pillar of former President Donald Trump’s economic nationalism, a federal appeals court has reinstated the controversial “Liberation Day” tariffs, granting a temporary stay against a lower court ruling that had previously struck them down.
The decision breathes new life into Trump’s hardline trade policy and marks a potential turning point in a legal tug-of-war over presidential powers in global commerce—especially those wielded under the rarely tested International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
On Wednesday, the Court of International Trade issued a forceful rejection of Trump’s sweeping tariffs, ruling that the former president had exceeded the powers granted to him under IEEPA. In doing so, the court sided with plaintiffs—ranging from multinational businesses to state attorneys general—who argued that the tariffs were not only economically damaging but constitutionally unsound.
The crux of the legal debate hinged on whether IEEPA gives the president unchecked authority to impose tariffs in response to national emergencies. The court’s answer was a firm no.
“The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority,” wrote the three-judge panel. “Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we instead read IEEPA’s provisions to impose meaningful limits.”
But by Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals stepped in with a temporary stay that puts the Trump-era tariffs back into effect—at least for now. The court will allow the plaintiffs until June 5 to respond, setting the stage for a fresh round of legal arguments that could define the boundaries of executive power in trade for years to come.
The Trump administration had defended its tariffs as essential for reversing what it described as “large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits,” which it argued had hollowed out American manufacturing and posed risks to national security.
This justification—unprecedented under IEEPA—was met with skepticism by the lower court, which found the rationale too sweeping and inadequately linked to the statutory requirements of the 1977 law.
Yet the appeals court’s move signals an openness to at least consider whether the national security narrative put forward by Trump may justify the tariffs under current law.