U.S. Trade Court Blocks Trump's Sweeping Global Tariffs
The U.S. Court of International Trade has blocked his administration's sweeping global tariffs, ruling that the president overstepped constitutional limits.
The three-judge panel in New York determined that the White House's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant the president authority to unilaterally impose broad import duties on nearly every U.S. trading partner. The court reaffirmed that the Constitution assigns Congress— not the president, the sole power to regulate international commerce.
The ruling halts tariffs that impacted dozens of nations, including key allies like the EU, UK, Canada, Mexico, and China. However, it does not apply to specific tariffs on cars, steel, and aluminum, which were enacted under a different statute.
Who Filed the Legal Challenge?
Two separate lawsuits sparked the court's decision. The nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center filed one on behalf of small businesses affected by the tariffs. The second challenge came from a coalition of 12 U.S. state governments, including New York, which challenged the constitutionality of the policy.
📜 The Court's Key Findings
The IEEPA does not authorize blanket tariffs for non-emergency trade policy.
The 'Liberation Day' tariffs— Trump's term for his economic reset— violated the separation of powers.
Additional levies on Canada, Mexico, and China were also invalidated, having been justified on grounds of immigration and drug enforcement.
Reactions Pour In
The White House, now under appeal, has criticized the ruling. 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' said Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai.
By contrast, New York Attorney General Letitia James praised the decision: 'The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like.'
Following the announcement, stock markets in Asia and the U.S. saw gains, while European indexes remained steady.
What Happens Next?
The court gave the White House 10 days to begin the administrative process to lift the tariffs. However, the administration has requested a temporary hold on the ruling while it prepares an appeal, which could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
Even if the appeal fails, Trump retains the option to reintroduce tariffs under different provisions, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15% for balance-of-payment issues. Analysts at Goldman Sachs suggest this route could be enacted within days.
Another possible path involves invoking the rarely used 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, allowing tariffs of up to 50% on nations deemed discriminatory toward the U.S.
What This Means for Businesses
According to former U.S. Customs official John Leonard, for now, importers must continue paying tariffs at the border. If the White House loses on appeal, Customs and Border Protection would be required to refund payments retroactively.
The ruling also throws uncertainty into ongoing U.S. trade negotiations. Experts believe many international partners may now delay deals until the legal battle is resolved.
Earlier this month, the UK and U.S. agreed to reduce tariffs on certain key goods, such as steel, aluminum, and vehicles. While those sector-specific reductions remain unaffected, the blanket 10% tariff on other UK imports now appears legally vulnerable.
The UK government has not yet issued a formal statement but affirmed its commitment to ensuring British firms benefit from the deal 'as quickly as possible.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
11 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
Slovak PM Fico Warns EU's "Mandatory Political Opinion" Spells End Of Common European Project
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico delivered a stark warning to fellow European leaders during his speech at CPAC Hungary in Budapest on Thursday, declaring that the European Union's attempt to impose a 'mandatory political opinion' on its member states signals the collapse of the European project and a departure from democratic values. 'The imposition of a mandatory political opinion, the abolition of the veto, the punishment of the sovereign and the brave, the new Iron Curtain, the preference for war over peace. This is the end of the common European project. This is a departure from democracy. This is the precursor of a huge military conflict,' he warned. Fico's remarks came as he revealed both he and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán had received threats from 'a particularly nervous new German chancellor,' who warned them that if they did not fall in line with Brussels' uniform view on military support for Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, ''You will be punished.'' 'No one in a peaceful and democratic project should have the right to treat other EU member states in this way, regardless of their size and economic strength,' he said. Fico, a veteran of Slovak politics who survived an assassination attempt last year, framed his overall remarks as a defense of national sovereignty in the face of what he described as increasing aggression from Brussels and major EU powers. 'I do not want to see our sovereignty and the national identity melt away in the generalist supranational, international structures, especially those in Brussels,' he said. While acknowledging his left-wing roots, Fico distanced himself from what he called the 'Brussels kind' of social democracy, instead describing himself as a 'rural socialist' focused on defending Slovakia's traditions, Christian heritage, and national interests. 'As a strong leftist, I have no problem spending the night with the people on the production line to support higher night shift allowances or wage increases,' he said. Click here to read more…
Daily Tribune
13 hours ago
- Daily Tribune
Court blocks Trump tariffs
AFP | Washington A US federal court blocked most of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, boosting markets yesterday with a ruling that could derail his trade strategy. The opinion marks a significant setback to Trump as he bids to redraw the US trading relationship with the world by forcing governments to the negotiating table through tough new tariffs. Trump's global trade war has roiled financial markets with a stop-start rollout of import levies aimed at punishing economies that sell more to the United States than they buy. Trump argued that the resulting trade deficits and the threat posed by the influx of drugs constituted a 'national emergency' that justified widespread tariffs. But the three-judge Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump had overstepped his authority, and barred most of the duties announced since he took office in January. Attorneys for the Trump administration promptly filed an appeal against the ruling, which gave the White House 10 days to complete the bureaucratic process of halting the tariffs. 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. 'President Trump pledged to put America first, and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness,' Desai said. The ruling comes as Trump was using the tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations with friends and foes, including the European Union and China. Beijing -- which was hit by 145 percent tariffs before they were sharply reduced to give space for negotiations -- reacted to the court ruling by saying the United States should scrap the levies.
Daily Tribune
a day ago
- Daily Tribune
U.S. Trade Court Blocks Trump's Sweeping Global Tariffs
The U.S. Court of International Trade has blocked his administration's sweeping global tariffs, ruling that the president overstepped constitutional limits. The three-judge panel in New York determined that the White House's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant the president authority to unilaterally impose broad import duties on nearly every U.S. trading partner. The court reaffirmed that the Constitution assigns Congress— not the president, the sole power to regulate international commerce. The ruling halts tariffs that impacted dozens of nations, including key allies like the EU, UK, Canada, Mexico, and China. However, it does not apply to specific tariffs on cars, steel, and aluminum, which were enacted under a different statute. Who Filed the Legal Challenge? Two separate lawsuits sparked the court's decision. The nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center filed one on behalf of small businesses affected by the tariffs. The second challenge came from a coalition of 12 U.S. state governments, including New York, which challenged the constitutionality of the policy. 📜 The Court's Key Findings The IEEPA does not authorize blanket tariffs for non-emergency trade policy. The 'Liberation Day' tariffs— Trump's term for his economic reset— violated the separation of powers. Additional levies on Canada, Mexico, and China were also invalidated, having been justified on grounds of immigration and drug enforcement. Reactions Pour In The White House, now under appeal, has criticized the ruling. 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' said Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai. By contrast, New York Attorney General Letitia James praised the decision: 'The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like.' Following the announcement, stock markets in Asia and the U.S. saw gains, while European indexes remained steady. What Happens Next? The court gave the White House 10 days to begin the administrative process to lift the tariffs. However, the administration has requested a temporary hold on the ruling while it prepares an appeal, which could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Even if the appeal fails, Trump retains the option to reintroduce tariffs under different provisions, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15% for balance-of-payment issues. Analysts at Goldman Sachs suggest this route could be enacted within days. Another possible path involves invoking the rarely used 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, allowing tariffs of up to 50% on nations deemed discriminatory toward the U.S. What This Means for Businesses According to former U.S. Customs official John Leonard, for now, importers must continue paying tariffs at the border. If the White House loses on appeal, Customs and Border Protection would be required to refund payments retroactively. The ruling also throws uncertainty into ongoing U.S. trade negotiations. Experts believe many international partners may now delay deals until the legal battle is resolved. Earlier this month, the UK and U.S. agreed to reduce tariffs on certain key goods, such as steel, aluminum, and vehicles. While those sector-specific reductions remain unaffected, the blanket 10% tariff on other UK imports now appears legally vulnerable. The UK government has not yet issued a formal statement but affirmed its commitment to ensuring British firms benefit from the deal 'as quickly as possible.'
