The Voice News: A federal court on Wednesday struck down most of the broad tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump, ruling that they exceeded his legal authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade found that the administration’s sweeping 10% tariffs—introduced last month on nearly all foreign imports during “Liberation Day”—were not supported by existing law.
The court also blocked separate tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, which the Trump administration claimed were justified by concerns over drug trafficking and illegal immigration. The decision caused global markets to surge in response.
The Trump administration had invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify the measures, arguing the trade deficit was a national emergency. But the court rejected this argument, stating that the IEEPA does not give the president unlimited power to impose tariffs, particularly for reasons unrelated to true emergencies.
“The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder,” the judges wrote.
The ruling stated that tariffs aimed at addressing trade imbalances do not fall under the emergency powers defined by the IEEPA. Additionally, the court ruled that tariffs on North American partners and China were not legally tied to the threats outlined in the executive orders.
The three-judge panel that issued the ruling included appointees from Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump himself. The Trump administration plans to appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the tariffs, calling the trade imbalance a “national emergency” that has devastated American industry.
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Desai said, adding, “President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”
Tariffs remain central to Trump’s second-term policy agenda, promoted as tools to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and counter what he considers unfair trade practices. However, the strategy has triggered market instability and bipartisan criticism.
While Trump continues to support the use of tariffs, many were paused amid international negotiations. The administration paused the “reciprocal” tariffs in April for at least 90 days, and goods covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement were excluded from certain 25% tariffs. Tariffs on Chinese imports were also eased.
Wednesday’s court ruling stemmed from lawsuits filed by impacted businesses and Democratic-led states. The cases invoked legal doctrines popular among conservative legal scholars—such as the major questions doctrine, which requires clear Congressional authorization for executive actions on significant economic issues, and the nondelegation doctrine, which limits how much legislative power Congress can hand over to the executive branch.
These rulings may have broader implications for the limits of presidential power in setting trade policy going forward.