A federal court delivered a major setback to President Trump’s sweeping tariff initiative on Wednesday, ruling that he had gone beyond the powers granted to him in pushing forward one of his hallmark economic strategies.
The Court of International Trade, based in Manhattan and composed of a three-judge panel, strongly criticized Trump’s tariffs targeting a wide range of foreign nations, stating that his actions were “contrary to law.” Trump had relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his actions, claiming that it gave him the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs.
But the court made clear that setting tariffs is typically within the jurisdiction of Congress and that Trump’s justification under the emergency powers law fell short. The judges ruled that the circumstances he cited did not rise to the level required to bypass legislative involvement.
“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA,” the panel concluded.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law.”
The challenge was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan legal group, on behalf of five small businesses whose supply chains were impacted by tariffs levied against countries targeted by Trump’s policy.
This legal defeat affects one of Trump’s largest economic moves since returning to office: the rollout of “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2. The policy was aimed at addressing what Trump described as long-standing, massive trade imbalances that harmed the U.S. economy.
Under that initiative, the administration implemented a general 10% tariff on imported goods and added country-specific rates that rattled global markets. Officials maintained that these steps were essential to revive American manufacturing.
Previously, Trump also levied steep tariffs against Canada, China, and Mexico, asserting that the threat of economic penalties would force those nations to curb illegal immigration and the flow of narcotics into the United States.
The administration imposed an additional 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% surcharge on imports from China.
The court decision temporarily blocks those tariffs, leaving only a few elements of Trump’s trade agenda in place. The ruling drew sharp criticism from the administration.
“The judicial coup is out of control,” Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, posted on X.
Officials have continued to argue that these trade measures are vital to counter the nation’s ongoing deficits.
White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the tariffs, calling the chronic trade imbalance a national emergency “that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Desai said, adding that the administration “remains committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”
The administration responded swiftly, filing a notice of appeal. The case is expected to escalate, potentially ending up before the Supreme Court for a final verdict.
White House officials argue that decisions on whether the president can invoke emergency powers to issue tariffs are inherently political and should be left to Congress — not the judiciary.
Not all of Trump’s trade maneuvers were undone by the ruling. The 25% tariffs on most imported automobiles and parts, along with duties on foreign-produced steel and aluminum, remain intact under authority granted by Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Several states that filed related lawsuits were included in this broader legal case, consolidating their arguments with those of the small businesses.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who led the multistate effort, praised the court’s decision.
“This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” he said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a longtime opponent of Trump, also weighed in.
“A court just ruled in our favor and permanently stopped the Trump administration’s illegal tariffs,” she posted.
“This is a major victory for working families, businesses, and the rule of law.”
They need to investigate who is paying off these judges! Follow the money and you’ll have the answers. Plain treason! This is national security, not just trade.
When you are eventually taken in for questioning without apparent reason, you will say it’s national security, not just bill of rights
Just because the president said it, doesn’t make it law. I’m not sure the laws here, but the president certainly isn’t above it.
You’re wrong. President Trump is a wartime president. That’s where we are in now. The Supreme Court has no authority as it is completely suspended during a time of war or public danger. However, the Constitution does grant the President and Congress broad powers during wartime, which can affect SCOTUS’s ability to act in certain areas.