A federal appeals court issued a major setback to President Trump’s trade policy on Friday, ruling that the bulk of his worldwide tariffs are unlawful.
The decision, however, is not yet final. The three-judge panel allowed the tariffs to remain active until Oct. 14, giving the administration time to bring the case before the Supreme Court.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the statute Trump used as justification for his broad tariff program did not actually give him the power to impose them.
Both Trump and the White House confirmed Friday that the case will be appealed to the high court, setting up a new clash over the president’s authority to impose duties on imported goods.
Late Friday, Trump blasted the ruling on Truth Social, slamming the “Highly Partisan Appeals Court” and stressing that “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!”
“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” Trump wrote. “It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”
The ruling undermines the centerpiece of Trump’s trade strategy, which dramatically altered America’s economic relations with countries worldwide.
The case began when a coalition of small businesses and a dozen states filed suit against Trump’s 2025 tariff initiative, a package of executive orders enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The program included “trafficking tariffs” of up to 25% on goods from Mexico and Canada and 10–20% on imports from China, which Trump said were necessary to combat fentanyl and drug trafficking. It also established “reciprocal tariffs” — a 10% duty on nearly all imports, with additional surcharges on certain countries.
Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border the day he took office on Jan. 20, later extending it to Canada and China by Feb. 1, before unveiling the global tariff regime in April.
In May, the Court of International Trade struck down those orders, ruling that IEEPA does not authorize blanket tariffs, and the Federal Circuit upheld that conclusion on Friday.
The appeals court stated explicitly that IEEPA does not empower presidents to impose duties.
“The power to ‘regulate’ has long been understood to be distinct from the power to ‘tax,’” the panel wrote, stressing that the statute’s language is insufficient to support Trump’s tariff program.
“IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to ‘regulate’ imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders,” the judges said, echoing the lower court’s decision.
The court emphasized that IEEPA has historically been used for sanctions, embargoes, and asset freezes — not the kind of sweeping duties Trump imposed.
“Whatever the policy justifications may be, they cannot override Congress’s choice of statutory limits,” the opinion added.
Responding online, Trump said the US “will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else.”
“Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!” he declared.
In a separate statement, the White House maintained that Trump “lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign threats.”
“The President’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter,” the statement said.
Trump wasted little time restoring his aggressive tariff program after returning to office.
On April 2, he declared a national emergency and introduced broad “reciprocal tariffs,” imposing a 10% baseline duty on almost all imports.
Soon after, he levied a 25% tariff on foreign cars and doubled steel and aluminum tariffs to 50%.
The moves sent relations with top trading partners into turmoil, particularly China.
Tariffs on Chinese goods climbed as high as 145% before a July truce lowered them to 30%.
Trump has also targeted other nations, imposing tariffs of 50% on India, 35% on Canada, and 25% on Mexico.
He ended the longstanding “de minimis” exemption for low-value online imports, ensuring that even inexpensive foreign shipments are subject to tariffs or fees.
Additional sector-specific duties were also introduced, including a 100% tariff on foreign films and a 25% “fentanyl tariff” aimed at countries, primarily China, accused of enabling opioid smuggling into the US.
{Matzav.com}