Court Says Trump Does Not Have The Power

A federal court ruled Wednesday that President Trump does not have the authority under economic emergency legislation to impose sweeping global tariffs. The decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade could severely undercut the administration’s trade policy and effectively halt much of the trade war strategy Trump has pursued since taking office. By striking down most categories of tariffs issued under this approach, the court dismantled much of the trade framework the administration had put in place.

In two separate cases, the court issued a summary judgment invalidating all tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law never previously used to justify broad tariff action. The plaintiffs groups of businesses and states argued that Trump’s orders overstepped the Constitution by seizing Congress’s exclusive authority over trade and import duties. The administration responded by filing an immediate notice of appeal.

The court focused on whether IEEPA gives the president the power to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every foreign nation without congressional oversight. In its opinion, the three-judge panel concluded that the law does not grant such unchecked authority. The judges stated plainly that they “do not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority,” and as a result, they struck down the tariffs imposed through that legal framework.

Tariffs enacted under a different statute, Section 232 covering imports like autos, steel, and aluminum are not affected by the ruling and remain in place.

The Court of International Trade, which handles civil disputes over trade and customs issues, typically operates outside the public spotlight. The panel that issued the decision included appointees from three different administrations: Reagan, Obama, and Trump.

In response to the ruling, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said it is not the role of “unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” Desai emphasized that President Trump remains committed to using executive authority to respond to economic threats and “restore American greatness.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted on X that “the judicial coup is out of control.”

On the other side, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, whose office led the states’ lawsuit, said the ruling was necessary to defend constitutional limits on presidential power. He argued that economic policy cannot be dictated by executive whim. New York Attorney General Letitia James, also part of the legal challenge, stated that the Constitution does not allow any president to unilaterally impose what she described as a massive tax hike. She warned that if allowed to proceed, the tariffs would have triggered greater inflation, widespread economic damage, and job losses across the country.

The court skipped over preliminary motions for an injunction and went directly to issuing a final judgment, stating that IEEPA did not authorize any of the “Worldwide, Retaliatory or Trafficking” tariff orders. It concluded by permanently enjoining their enforcement.

With goods already en route to U.S. ports, the ruling introduces significant uncertainty around what tariffs if any should be collected on incoming shipments. Businesses and markets are expected to closely monitor the administration’s next steps and whether the issue escalates to higher courts.

Analysts have warned that the ruling dramatically shifts the leverage in ongoing trade talks. According to Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute’s Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, foreign governments that were pressured into renegotiating trade deals under threat of tariffs now find themselves in a stronger position.