The Court of International Trade's decision blocks tariffs imposed under an emergency law, arguing Congress alone holds the power to regulate international commerce.
US Court Deals Major Setback to Trump's Tariff Policies
US Court Deals Major Setback to Trump's Tariff Policies
A federal court ruling challenges President Trump's authority on sweeping tariffs.
In a landmark decision, the United States Court of International Trade has ruled against President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, marking a significant setback for his administration's economic strategy. The court concluded that the emergency powers invoked by the White House do not confer upon the president the unilateral authority to impose tariffs on a wide range of countries. This ruling emphasizes the United States Constitution, which reserves the exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations to Congress.
Immediately following the ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal, signaling the administration’s intent to continue its controversial tariff policy. The court's ruling also addresses tariffs previously imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada, which the Trump administration had defended as necessary measures to counter the "unacceptable" influx of drugs and illegal immigration into the United States.
Responding to the ruling, White House Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai criticized the decision, arguing that unelected judges should not determine the government's response to national emergencies. Meanwhile, the lawsuit that initiated this ruling was brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small businesses negatively impacted by the tariffs.
Letitia James, Attorney General of New York and one of the states involved in the lawsuit, praised the court's decision, asserting that it reinforces the principle that no president has the unilateral power to impose taxes at will. She warned of the economic repercussions that the tariffs would have had, which included exacerbating inflation and harming businesses and families across America.
This ruling is just one of several legal challenges facing the Trump administration's trade policies, with others coming from 13 states and multiple business coalitions. A three-judge panel specifically pointed out that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump cited as a basis for the tariffs, does not provide the authority for such broad impositions. Their decision clarifies that the tariffs exceeded the legal limits set for presidential action.
Financial markets reacted positively to the news, signaling a bounce back as the anxiety surrounding the tariffs subsided. In Asia, stock markets saw significant gains, and US stock futures responded enthusiastically as well, indicating potential stability in investor sentiment post-ruling.
