A federal appeals court has ruled that most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs are illegal under federal law, affirming that they exceed the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, upheld the ruling of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), which had previously found the tariffs to be legally invalid. In a 7-4 vote, the appellate panel allowed the tariffs to remain in place through October 14, providing the Trump administration time to pursue a Supreme Court appeal.
The ruling marks a significant legal challenge to Trump’s use of executive power to impose tariffs on imports from countries like China, Mexico, and Canada. The White House, however, asserted that the tariffs are lawful and necessary for protecting U.S. economic interests. White House spokesman Kush Desai stated that the administration would continue to defend the tariffs, arguing that they are a legitimate exercise of presidential authority under IEEPA. Trump himself weighed in on Truth Social, calling the ruling a ‘Highly Partisan Appeals Court’ decision and warning that removing the tariffs ‘would literally destroy the United States of America.’ He framed the tariffs as a critical tool for restoring American manufacturing and reducing trade deficits.
The legal battle over the tariffs has been a defining issue in Trump’s second term, as the administration has used them as a political weapon to pressure foreign nations into renegotiating trade deals. The Supreme Court’s eventual stance on this matter could have far-reaching implications for how future presidents use executive authority to address trade disputes. Meanwhile, the immediate financial impact of the tariffs continues to be felt, with over $142 billion in revenue collected by July, representing a sharp increase from the same period the previous year. The decision also reignited debates about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in matters of economic policy.
As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome could set important precedents for how tariffs are implemented and challenged in the future. The potential for the Supreme Court to intervene underscores the high stakes of this case, which has become a flashpoint in the broader discussion about the limits of presidential power and the role of Congress in shaping trade policy. For now, the tariffs remain in place, but the legal battle over their legality continues to escalate as the administration seeks its ultimate victory at the highest level of the judiciary.