Court rules against Trump's claim of unrestricted power to impose global tariffs worldwide
Article Rewrite
In a significant court ruling, a panel of judges, appointed by former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump himself, determined that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs. The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday, questions the President's unilateral power to levy unlimited tariffs on goods from various countries worldwide.
The judges opined that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, as well as to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This constitutional provision, they argued, conflicts with the President's authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not delegate these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," the court stated.
The court's decision follows two cases challenging the tariffs, and it sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders were deemed excessive and not within the President's authority, while the Trafficking Tariffs failed to address the threats set forth in the orders.
The panel's decision bypassed the plaintiff's preliminary requests for temporary injunctive relief, moving straight to the merits to vacate the tariffs and permanently enjoin them from enforcement.
The Trump administration has signaled its intent to appeal the court's decision, leading to uncertainty about which goods may be subject to tariffs and how the administration will react in the meantime.
White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the tariffs, stating that foreign countries' nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has created national emergency-level trade deficits. Desai argued that it is inappropriate for unelected judges to determine how to address a national emergency, and that President Trump is committed to using every lever of executive power to ensure American prosperity.
The court's ruling underscores the importance of checks and balances in ensuring that the President does not overstep constitutional limits in his use of tariffs as a trade tool. It also highlights the role of judicial review in holding the Executive Branch accountable.
Reuters contributed to this report.
- The court's decision questions the President's unilateral authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from various countries, a power traditionally exclusive to Congress, as they are responsible for laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and regulating commerce with foreign nations.
- The judges highlighted the meaningful role of judicial review in holding the Executive Branch accountable, especially in cases where the President may overstep constitutional limits in using tariffs as a trade tool.
- The ruling follows two cases challenging the tariffs, and it sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed under IEEPA, marking a significant shift in capital markets and the broader economy given the widespread impact of these tariffs on industries and wealth distribution.
- As the Trump administration has signaled its intent to appeal the court's decision, policy-and-legislation discussions and general news headlines continue to revolve around this matter, showcasing the intricate polyphony between politics, economy, and the judicial sector.
