
What Comes Next In Trump's Legal Battle Over Tariffs?
A US federal appeals court has temporarily halted a ruling that found many of President Donald Trump's tariffs illegal, but the chance it could ultimately back the original decision looms over the White House.
What is in the US Court of International Trade's original ruling -- which the Trump administration is appealing -- and what options does the administration have?
The three-judge trade court ruled Wednesday that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing blanket tariffs by invoking emergency economic powers.
The judgment -- although temporarily halted -- affected levies unveiled on April 2, which involve a 10-percent tariff on most trading partners and higher rates on dozens of economies including China and the European Union. These higher levels are currently suspended while negotiations take place.
The ruling also applies to tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China over their alleged roles in allowing an influx of drugs into the United States.
But it left intact sector-specific levies like those on steel, aluminum and auto imports.
The ruling by the little-known court, which has nationwide jurisdiction over tariff and trade disputes, initially gave the White House 10 days to complete the process of unwinding the levies.
But the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday granted a temporary stay "until further notice" while the Trump administration's appeals process plays out.
This means the tariffs can remain in effect for now, while a longer-term outcome is yet to be determined.
National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett told Fox News the administration is "very pleased with the ruling," dubbing it a victory.
The appeals court could eventually uphold the trade court's original decision to block Trump's sweeping tariffs.
The president, however, has other means to reinstate his tariff agenda, said Thibault Denamiel, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
These include Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, "which is intended to deal with a balance of payments emergency but does not require a formal investigation," Denamiel told AFP.
The authority restricts tariffs to 15 percent and they can only last 150 days.
But it is among the policy levers that Trump could pull as he seeks a "bridge" towards more lasting actions, said KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk.
Another option is Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930, allowing the administration to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries that discriminate against the United States, Denamiel said.
The US trade court's ruling did not remove the threat of US tariffs for Europe or end the need for negotiations, said Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist at Capital Economics.
This is because the threat of reciprocal tariffs remains if the White House wins its appeal, he said.
Trump could also turn to sector-specific means as he did in his first term or seek congressional approval for tariffs, though this is less likely, Kenningham said.
It is not clear if negotiations will lose steam, Swonk added, given that the administration wants to leverage the threat of tariffs "very aggressively."
Even if the original ruling is eventually upheld, US officials could still buy time to exert pressure on other economies including the European Union and China.
The court process "introduces greater ambiguity around the future direction of US trade policy," especially because the appeal is ongoing, said EY chief economist Gregory Daco.
"This legal development amplifies longer-lasting uncertainty for businesses navigating cross-border supply chains," he added in a note.
US stocks closed higher Thursday, but economic fallout has already occurred in recent months with Trump's see-sawing approach to unveiling tariffs and pausing them selectively.
Financial markets have been roiled by policy shifts, and shipping halts due to high tariffs bring disruptions that cannot be cleared overnight, analysts said.
"The fate of the economy remains precarious even if we avert a recession," Swonk said on social media.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Int'l Business Times
3 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Trump Blames Biden's 'Open Borders' for Colorado Terror Attack, Fails to Mention Antisemitism Despite Hate Crime Charges
President Donald Trump blamed President Joe Biden's immigration policies for terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, but omitted any reference to the antisemitic nature of the attack, despite federal hate crime charges filed against the suspect. "Yesterday's horrific attack in Boulder, Colorado, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in the United States of America," Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday, claiming that the suspect "came in through Biden's ridiculous Open Border Policy." "Acts of Terrorism will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law," the post continued. "This is yet another example of why we must keep our Borders SECURE, and deport Illegal, Anti-American Radicals from our Homeland." Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, has been charged with a federal hate crime after targeting a Jewish group demonstrating in support of Israeli hostages taken during the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. The FBI said Soliman shouted, "Free Palestine," as he used Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower in a premeditated attack that injured eight, including a Holocaust survivor, the BBC reported. Though federal authorities explicitly stated the attack was motivated by antisemitism and occurred on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, Trump did not mention the Jewish identity of the victims or the hate crime aspect in his statement. "We know that this individual, this terrorist, was allowed into this country by the previous administration, was foolishly given a tourism visa and illegally allowed to stay," Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday morning, echoing Trump's immigration-focused message. "These individuals are going to be deported and we're not going to tolerate such violence in our country." The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Soliman, a father of five, entered the U.S. legally in 2022 but remained after his visa expired. The attack comes just weeks after a young Jewish couple was shot outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington D.C. by a man who shouted "free Palestine." Originally published on Latin Times


Int'l Business Times
5 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Musk Refuses to Share Thoughts on Trump Admin's Policy on International Students Despite Being One Himself
Elon Musk declined to comment on the Trump administration's proposal to ban foreign students, despite having once been one himself, sidestepping the question with a curt pivot to "spaceships." During a sit-down with CBS' "Sunday Morning" correspondent David Pogue at SpaceX headquarters, Musk was asked about the administration's controversial proposal. "You were one of those kids, right?" Pogue asked, while questioning the Tesla CEO on his thoughts on the topic. Musk dodged the question, stating, "I think we wanna stick to the subject of the day, which is, like, spaceships, as opposed to presidential policy." When pressed, he shut the door: "No, well—no." Musk did, however, express discomfort with being held responsible for every Trump administration policy, saying, "I don't want to speak up against the administration, but I also don't want to take responsibility for everything the administration's doing." In the same interview filmed last week, Musk publicly criticized the multi-trillion-dollar spending bill supported by President Donald Trump, calling it counterproductive to DOGE's mission. Within 24 hours of that comment airing, Musk announced he was officially stepping down from his government post. Though he claimed it was due to the end of his 130-day advisory term, the timing led users online to speculate friction behind the scenes. His refusal to weigh in stood in contrast to his usual willingness to criticize government inefficiencies and policies. The White House, meanwhile, continues to defend its immigration proposals without comment from one of its highest-profile foreign-born allies. Originally published on Latin Times


Int'l Business Times
5 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Kristi Noem's 'Sanctuary' Cities List Taken Down After Police Org Condemned Her Department's 'Terrible Disservice' to Trump
The Department of Homeland Security, headed by Secretary Kristi Noem, removed a list of sanctuary cities and counties which it initially published in order to accuse local legislators of obstructing the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda. The National Sheriffs' Association, a group that consistently supports President Donald Trump, spoke out against the publication of the list on Saturday, calling it "arbitrary". "DHS has done a terrible disservice to President Trump and the Sheriffs of this country. The President's goals to reduce crime, secure the Borders, and make America safer have taken a step backward," the group's president, Sheriff Kieran Donahue of Canyon County, Idaho, said in a statement. "The sheriffs of this country feel betrayed." The association continued to state that the list was "created without any input, criteria for compliance, or mechanism for how to object to the designation." Noem shared the publication of the list last week, accusing representatives and officials of the included cities and counties of hampering federal law. "These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens," Noem said at the time. "We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law. President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law." Sanctuary city policies prevent local law enforcement officers from regularly checking in on people's immigration status, though undocumented immigrants are turned over to immigration authorities if they commit a felony. Trump has referred to these policies as "lawless insurrection" against the federal government, and called for a list of cities which had adopted such policies. While the list published by the DHS included cities which are known sanctuary cities, such as Boston, Chicago, New York City and Denver, it also included cities which had never adopted such policies. "The completion and publication of this list has not only violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement, but it also has the potential to strain the relationship between Sheriffs and the White House administration," NSA's statement continued. "This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that make takes years to overcome." Originally published on Latin Times