Well, this is a head-scratcher! An Appeals Court just declared Donald Trump’s global tariffs illegal, but here’s the kicker – they’re still in effect! What does this mean for the future of US trade policy, and will the Supreme Court have the final say? The plot thickens.
The legal landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump’s controversial global tariffs has taken another dramatic turn, as an Appeals Court recently declared these sweeping import taxes illegal. This pivotal Appeals Court Ruling represents a significant challenge to the foundations of his administration’s US Trade Policy, yet, in an unexpected twist, the levies are permitted to remain in place, at least for the immediate future.
The court’s decision delivered a striking blow to the former President’s strategy, unequivocally stating that he lacked the proper legal authority to impose such extensive global tariffs. Furthermore, the ruling challenged his past practice of declaring various situations as “national emergencies” as a basis for these economic measures, underscoring a critical debate over executive power and constitutional limits.
Despite finding the global tariffs unlawful, the court granted a temporary reprieve, allowing them to remain active until October 14. This grace period offers the White House an opportunity to prepare and file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a potentially landmark legal battle that could redefine presidential authority in trade matters.
This is not the first time Donald Trump’s US Trade Policy has faced judicial scrutiny; earlier this year, a federal appeals court had temporarily blocked some of his import taxes before they were subsequently reinstated. Such back-and-forth legal challenges highlight the contentious nature of his economic approach and the deep divisions it has created within the legal and political spheres.
During his presidency, Donald Trump often invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his far-reaching global tariffs on trading partners. He cited issues ranging from fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration to the substantial US trade deficit as matters of National Emergency, thereby asserting his executive power to impose trade restrictions.
However, the Appeals Court firmly countered this interpretation, stating, “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.” The court further clarified that while US law bestows significant authority on the president during a declared National Emergency, “none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax,” a key point of contention in this Economic Law case.
Donald Trump initiated a global tariffs war with numerous countries, implementing a minimum 10 percent tariff on their exports to the US and even a 25 percent tariff on Mexico and Canada. He explicitly stated these levies were necessary to curb the flow of illegal immigrants and combat the drug Fentanyl, shaping his distinctive US Trade Policy.
This latest Appeals Court Ruling is poised to significantly impact the trajectory of Donald Trump’s international trade war, potentially signaling an end to his most sweeping tariffs and effectively undoing many of the trade restrictions enacted during his tenure. The implications for international trade relations and the global economy are substantial.
Responding via his Truth Social platform, Donald Trump vehemently criticized the ruling, labeling it a “total disaster” for America and insisting that global tariffs are “the best tool to help our workers.” Previously, White House spokesman Kush Desai had defended the administration’s stance, arguing that foreign countries’ “nonreciprocal treatment” fueled trade deficits, creating a National Emergency that “unelected judges” should not overturn.
