Trump’s tariffs deemed unlawful — here’s what it means
Donald Trump. Picture: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images
A federal appeals court has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs were unlawfully imposed, striking at the heart of one of his signature trade policies.
In a 7-4 decision on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the statute Trump relied on — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — does not grant him authority to impose broad, open-ended tariffs. According to the majority opinion, tariff-setting powers are “a core Congressional authority” that cannot be unilaterally exercised by the executive branch.
The ruling temporarily remains on hold until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for reversal.
Trump reacted swiftly, condemning the court as “Highly Partisan” on his Truth Social platform and insisting that eliminating the tariffs would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. “If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” he wrote, predicting the Supreme Court would ultimately side with him.
The White House echoed his defiance. “The President’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter,” spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.
The Legal Battle Over “Liberation Day” Tariffs
The decision marks the second consecutive courtroom defeat for Trump in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, a case that consolidated lawsuits from a coalition of 12 states and five small businesses.
Critics of the policy welcomed the ruling. Attorney Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, representing the business plaintiffs, described it as a safeguard for both American companies and consumers against economic harm. His co-counsel, Neal Katyal, called the decision a reaffirmation of the Founders’ principle that presidents must operate within the rule of law.
At issue were Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” and so-called “Liberation Day tariffs”, which applied sweeping duties on goods imported from countries including China, Mexico, and Canada. The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to curb fentanyl trafficking and to level the global trade playing field.
However, the Federal Circuit held that Trump’s tariffs were “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration” and therefore beyond the powers granted by IEEPA.
Dissenting Voices and Government Concerns
Four judges dissented, contending that the majority overstepped in declaring the tariffs illegal. They further argued that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently justified their request for summary judgment.
The appeals court panel of 11 judges did not include Judge Pauline Newman, 98, who has been suspended from the bench since 2023 due to a dispute over her refusal to undergo a cognitive evaluation.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration maintains that dismantling the tariffs would destabilize both the economy and U.S. foreign relations. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick warned the court that invalidating the duties could unravel existing trade deals, spark retaliation from foreign partners, and damage ongoing negotiations.
Just hours before the ruling, Trump’s trade team had urged the court to weigh new findings from the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that tariffs could reduce the U.S. deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.
What Comes Next
The ruling adds momentum to a wave of challenges against Trump’s trade policies, with more than half a dozen similar cases still in progress. The administration is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, setting up what could be a decisive showdown over the limits of presidential authority in economic policymaking.
For now, Trump’s tariffs remain in effect — but their future hangs in the balance.
