A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that the majority of US tariffs imposed under President Donald Trump’s trade policies were unlawful, concluding that they exceeded the authority granted by Congress under existing emergency powers legislation. The decision, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 29, marks a significant legal determination against one of the former administration’s key economic tools.
In a 7-4 decision, the court found that the tariffs, enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), went beyond what the statute permits. The ruling upholds a prior judgment issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade in May, which declared the tariffs unauthorized and permanently enjoined their enforcement. However, enforcement of the decision has been delayed until mid-October to allow for further legal proceedings.
The US tariffs in question include a range of duties imposed on imports from countries such as China, Canada and Mexico, as well as across the European Union. These measures were originally justified by the Trump administration as necessary for national security and economic stability. However, the court determined that the IEEPA does not provide the executive branch with the authority to impose tariffs of this scope and nature.
Under the IEEPA, the president is permitted to regulate economic transactions during declared national emergencies, but the statute does not explicitly authorize the imposition of import tariffs. The appellate court emphasized that tariff authority is traditionally held by Congress and that the statute’s language does not support the delegation of such broad trade powers to the executive branch. The decision affects what were described as “reciprocal” tariffs, including blanket 10 percent rates applied to numerous imports and additional surcharges based on trade imbalances.
Majority of emergency tariffs lacked legal backing
These tariffs had been central to the Trump administration’s strategy to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and pressure trading partners to revise existing agreements. The court ruled that such actions did not comply with legislative boundaries set by Congress under IEEPA. While the court agreed that the president has substantial emergency powers under the statute, it stated that these powers do not extend to setting tariff policy absent specific authorization. The judges noted that any deviation from this principle would erode the constitutional framework that allocates tariff and taxation authority to the legislative branch.
The ruling does not immediately remove the tariffs. The court has paused enforcement of its order until October 14, providing time for parties to seek further review from the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, the contested tariffs remain in effect during this interim period. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice have not issued detailed comments on the ruling. The Trump campaign criticized the court’s decision, but no formal legal filings had been made in response at the time of the announcement.
Importers challenged tariffs as harmful and unauthorized
The appellate court’s opinion brings clarity to a long-standing legal debate over the limits of presidential authority in economic policymaking, particularly during declared emergencies. The case was brought by a group of importers who argued that the tariffs were not only unauthorized but harmful to U.S. businesses that rely on global supply chains. The plaintiffs contended that the tariffs increased costs and created market uncertainty without following proper legislative procedures.
The outcome of the case could influence how future administrations approach the use of emergency economic powers, particularly with respect to trade enforcement and US tariff policy, by reinforcing the need for clear legislative authority before imposing sweeping economic measures. For now, the ruling stands as one of the most significant judicial rebukes of trade measures enacted during the Trump presidency, with lasting implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. – By Content Syndication Services.