Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Trump’s Tariffs

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a significant legal ruling, a federal appeals court determined on Friday that President Donald Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing broad tariffs on nearly all countries. However, the court opted to maintain the current tariffs temporarily, allowing the Trump administration until mid-October to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Court’s Decision

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision comes as a setback for Trump, affirming a previous ruling by a specialized federal trade court in New York. The judges asserted, “It seems unlikely that Congress intended to grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” in a 7-4 decision that questioned the administration’s interpretation of emergency powers.

Tariffs Under Scrutiny

Trump’s tariffs, which he claims were necessitated by a long-standing trade deficit, had rallied some support but also triggered legal challenges from small businesses, legal experts, and members of Congress. Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, commented, “This decision protects American businesses and consumers from the uncertainty and harm caused by these unlawful tariffs.”

Response from the White House

In response to the ruling, Trump took to his social media platform, expressing that the decision has the potential to “literally destroy the United States of America.” White House spokesman Kush Desai affirmed that the president acted lawfully and expressed confidence in ultimately prevailing in this legal challenge.

Implications for U.S. Trade Policy

The court’s ruling complicates Trump’s strategy to unilaterally reshape American trade policy. Although the administration has alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs, these approaches would likely be slower and less severe.

Potential Consequences for Revenue

The government has argued that nullifying the tariffs could require refunding a considerable amount of the $159 billion generated from these tariffs—a situation that officials warn could lead to “financial ruin” for the U.S. Treasury.

Legal Framework of the Tariffs

The ruling involves two critical sets of import taxes imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by which Trump declared a national emergency—a move that has faced critique from multiple quarters. Opponents have noted that the ongoing trade deficit, which has persisted for 49 years, does not meet the legal threshold of an “unusual and extraordinary” threat necessary to justify declaring an emergency.

Calls for Congressional Action

Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon revealed plans to push for votes aimed at repealing what he called “harmful, regressive taxes” imposed by these tariffs. National Foreign Trade Council President Jake Colvin emphasized the importance of Congress reclaiming its constitutional mandate to regulate duties, aiming to bring long-term certainty to U.S. businesses and offer relief to consumers.

Conclusion

This recent appellate court ruling raises significant questions about the limits of presidential power over tariffs and trade policy. As the Trump administration prepares its appeal, the outcome may serve as a pivotal moment in determining the future landscape of American trade relations and economic stability.