A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that most of former President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed under emergency powers are unlawful, delivering a major setback to one of the signature pillars of his economic agenda.
In a 7–4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he used the law to levy sweeping tariffs on imports from countries including China, Canada, and Mexico.
The court said the IEEPA allows presidents to regulate financial transactions during national emergencies but does not authorize the imposition of duties, tariffs, or taxes, which the U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress.
The ruling marks one of the most significant judicial checks on Trump’s use of executive authority since his return to the White House, underscoring long-standing concerns about the expansion of presidential emergency powers.
Still, the decision will not take immediate effect. The court allowed the tariffs to remain in place until October 14, giving the administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The tariffs were central to Trump’s economic policy in both of his terms. He repeatedly argued that aggressive trade measures were necessary to protect American jobs and manufacturing while reducing U.S. dependence on foreign goods.
The court’s decision casts uncertainty over billions of dollars in trade flows, raising fresh questions about the durability of Trump’s approach to tariffs as a negotiating tool. Importers, exporters, and trade groups have long challenged the levies, arguing they hurt U.S. businesses and consumers.
In its opinion, the majority emphasized that allowing the executive branch to wield tariff powers without congressional approval would upset the constitutional balance of powers. “The authority to tax imports lies firmly with Congress,” the judges wrote.
Four judges dissented, saying the court should give the president broader latitude to act in response to national security threats, especially when global trade intersects with U.S. strategic interests.
The Trump administration quickly signaled its intent to fight the ruling. The former president, speaking on his social media platform, blasted the court as “partisan” and vowed that the Supreme Court would overturn the decision. He warned that striking down the tariffs would “destroy America’s ability to compete.”
Legal analysts, however, said the ruling reflects growing judicial skepticism of executive overreach. “This case is about more than tariffs,” said one constitutional law professor. “It’s about the limits of presidential power and the role of Congress in economic governance.”
The decision drew mixed reactions from business groups. Some importers welcomed the ruling, saying it could eventually ease the financial burden on U.S. companies. Others worried about the uncertainty it created as the case moves toward the Supreme Court.
The Biden administration has not yet commented publicly on the ruling, though trade officials are expected to review its implications for ongoing negotiations with major U.S. partners.
While the decision invalidates tariffs imposed under IEEPA, it does not immediately affect other Trump-era tariffs justified under different legal frameworks, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows levies for national security reasons.
For now, the ruling leaves in limbo a central element of Trump’s trade strategy, while setting up a high-stakes legal battle that could define the scope of presidential emergency powers for years to come.
