Washington, D.C. – President Donald Trump has faced a significant legal setback as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared the unilateral tariffs imposed under his administration as unconstitutional. The court’s 127-page decision ruled that the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), challenging the legal foundation of Trump’s trade policy.

In response, Trump immediately vowed to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, emphasizing the economic risks of losing the tariffs regime and describing the appellate court’s decision as a threat that would “literally destroy the United States of America.” This ruling shakes the core of presidential powers in trade regulation amid ongoing political and legal battles.

The Legal Grounds Behind the Appellate Court’s Ruling

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the IEEPA statute does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs. The court stated:

“[I]n each statute delegating tariff power to the President, Congress has provided specific substantive limitations and procedural guidelines to be followed in imposing any such tariffs… 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.”

The judges underscored that the government’s interpretation of IEEPA amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s taxation authority, which must have clear and intelligible principles. The Court warned that allowing the executive branch unlimited power to impose tariffs would pose a serious constitutional problem.

• The court emphasized that Congress traditionally sets clear limits on tariff powers given to the President.
• IEEPA grants emergency powers but does not explicitly include tariff imposition authority.
• Unlimited tariff power would effectively allow the executive branch to raise trillions of dollars without Congressional oversight.

Trump’s Swift Reaction and Promise to Appeal

President Trump, through a message on Truth Social, strongly criticized the ruling, calling it “highly partisan” and warning of dire consequences if the tariffs were removed. He said:

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe…If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”

• Trump pledges to appeal to the Supreme Court immediately.
• He argues tariffs are essential to protect U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and economic strength.
• The White House maintains tariffs are a key strategy against unfair foreign trade practices.

The Background and Ongoing Court Battle

The tariffs regime at the center of the dispute was challenged initially by V.O.S. Selections, an alcohol importer, and other businesses citing disruptions in pricing, shipping, inventory, and finances. A coalition of 12 Democratic-led states also filed a separate challenge. These cases were consolidated and first ruled against the tariffs by the Court of International Trade, but that ruling was stayed by the appellate court pending further review.

• A unanimous panel on the Court of International Trade initially blocked the tariffs.
• The appellate court stayed that block until October 14, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect during appeals.
• The appellate court’s decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s prior rulings narrowing nationwide injunctions power.
• U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman did not participate due to health reasons, but the ruling was supported by the remaining judges.

This continuing litigation demonstrates the complex interplay between congressional authority, executive power, trade policy, and constitutional limits.

What Lies Ahead for the Tariffs Regime?

With Trump pledging an immediate appeal to SCOTUS, the fate of the tariffs regime remains uncertain:

• The Supreme Court will need to consider questions about the scope of presidential powers under IEEPA and constitutional delegation.
• The New York-based trade court will reassess whether its universal injunction meets the standards set by recent Supreme Court rulings.
• The decision could redefine the limits of unilateral tariff imposition by a future president.

As the debate progresses, policymakers, businesses, and economists await clarity on this pivotal trade and constitutional issue.

For more in-depth coverage of legal developments and related news, visit Law & Crime.

Participate in the Conversation

What do you think about the appellate court’s ruling and Trump’s promise to appeal? Could this case reshape the limits of presidential power over trade? Share your thoughts in the comments below and join the discussion on this landmark legal battle impacting U.S. trade policy.