Most Trump Tariffs Are Not Legal, U.S. Appeals Court Rules

8 months ago 16
ARTICLE AD BOX

NEW YORK, Aug 29 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that most of Donald Trump’s tariffs are illegal, undercutting the Republican president’s use of the levies as a key international economic policy tool.

Trump has made tariffs a pillar of U.S. foreign policy in his second term, using them to exert political pressure and renegotiate trade deals with countries that export goods to the United States.

The tariffs have given the Trump administration leverage to extract economic concessions from trading partners but have also increased volatility in financial markets.

“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax,” the court said.

The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., addressed the legality of what Trump calls “reciprocal” tariffs imposed as part of his trade war in April, as well as a separate set of tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.

The court’s decision does not impact tariffs issued under other legal authority, such as Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

The case is widely is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump justified both sets of tariffs - as well as more recent tariffs - under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA gives the president the power to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the ruling said. “The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs.”

FILE - President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House, on April 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)
FILE - President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House, on April 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)

via Associated Press

The 1977 law had historically been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets. Trump, the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, says the measures were justified given trade imbalances, declining U.S. manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs.

Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorize a president to “regulate” imports or block them completely.

Trump declared a national emergency in April over the fact that the U.S. imports more than it exports, as the nation has done for decades. Trump said the persistent trade deficit was undermining U.S. manufacturing capability and military readiness. Trump said the February tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders, an assertion the countries have denied.

The appeals court ruled on two cases, one brought by five small U.S. businesses and the other by 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, which argued that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.

The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be both explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits.

The New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against Trump’s tariff policies on May 28, saying the president had exceeded his authority when he imposed both sets of challenged tariffs. The three-judge panel included a judge who was appointed by Trump in his first term.

Another court in Washington ruled that IEEPA does not authorize Trump’s tariffs, and the government has appealed that decision as well. At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.

20 Years OfFreeJournalism

Your Support Fuels Our Mission

Your Support Fuels Our Mission

For two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can't do this without you.

We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.

Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.

We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.

Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.

Support HuffPost

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; additional reporting by Nate Raymond and Tom Hals; Editing by William Mallard)

Read Entire Article