US court blocks Trump tariffs | In a landmark ruling with global economic implications, the US Court of International Trade on Wednesday struck down former President Donald Trump’s controversial ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, ruling that the administration had overstepped its constitutional authority by imposing broad-based import duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The three-judge panel based in Manhattan ruled that Congress did not grant unlimited tariff-setting powers to the President under IEEPA, and that the use of emergency powers to regulate international commerce without Congressional approval violates the US Constitution.
The Trump administration had sought to use IEEPA to justify sweeping 10% tariffs on all goods imported from countries with which the US has trade deficits, including major partners like China, the European Union, India, and Mexico. The policy, first announced on April 2, was presented as a way to restore American manufacturing and reduce economic dependency on foreign suppliers.
But Wednesday’s court decision delivered a major blow to the Trump trade agenda, calling the use of IEEPA for tariff imposition an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.”
“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” the judges wrote. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because federal law does not allow it.”
Trump Cites Trade Deficits, National Security as Justification
The Trump White House had argued that chronic trade deficits and threats from Mexican drug cartels constituted national security emergencies under IEEPA. Officials also claimed the tariffs were instrumental in mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan earlier this month, following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, by Pakistan-based militants.
ALSO READ: Laptops, smartphones and more items dropped from US tariff list
The administration said ongoing trade negotiations with multiple countries were at a “delicate stage,” and warned that the ruling could unravel a tentative 90-day tariff reduction truce with China.
In response to the court’s decision, the Trump administration filed an immediate appeal. While the White House and legal teams did not issue formal comments, senior adviser Stephen Miller took to social media, calling the ruling a “judicial coup.”
The court’s decision followed lawsuits filed by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses, as well as by 13 US states. Plaintiffs argued the tariffs would severely damage their ability to operate in an already volatile economic environment. Several additional legal challenges to the tariffs remain pending.
Tariffs Already Rolled Back Amid Market Shock
Even before the court’s ruling, the Trump administration had paused many of the most aggressive tariffs, including those targeting China and the EU, after a sharp negative reaction from US financial markets. On May 12, the administration announced a temporary reduction in China tariffs, part of an ongoing effort to reach a longer-term US-China trade deal.
The proposed July 7 deadline for finalizing several trade agreements now hangs in the balance, with the legality of the tariff structure thrown into question.
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the constitutional principle that Congress—not the President—controls foreign trade policy. The outcome could restrict future presidents from invoking emergency powers to bypass legislative authority on economic matters.
As Trump continues to campaign for a return to the White House in 2025, the court’s decision could emerge as a central issue in debates over executive power, trade protectionism, and the role of the judiciary in checking presidential authority.
