In a landmark ruling on May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) deemed the tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful. This decision represents a critical affirmation of the limits of executive authority regarding trade and highlights the ongoing tensions among the branches of government concerning economic policy.
The court’s ruling specifically addressed two sets of tariffs: those targeting China, Canada, and Mexico, labelled as “trafficking tariffs,” which were ostensibly aimed at combatting illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking, as well as “reciprocal tariffs” applied generally to all countries to address perceived trade imbalances. The CIT found that these measures grossly exceeded the powers granted to the President under IEEPA, reinforcing the principle that only Congress has the authority to regulate international trade.
Notably, the court identified that the President’s justification—that these tariffs were necessary to counter “unusual and extraordinary threats”—failed to meet the statutory requirements of the IEEPA, which is intended to be invoked in cases of genuine economic or national peril. The CIT found that the collection of tariffs was designed more as a leverage tool rather than a direct response to significant threats, thus invalidating the administration’s rationale. Echoing this sentiment, one legal analyst remarked that the ruling not only invalidated tariffs but also underscored the “necessity of clear congressional authorization for significant economic actions.”
The aftermath of the ruling saw the government promptly appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking to stay the court’s order while the appeal is pending. This action reflects a broader strategy of the Trump administration, which frequently invoked emergency powers to implement tariffs across a variety of industries. Economists have noted that while the appeal process is underway, significant market uncertainty remains, with implications for global trade relations.
This latest intervention by the courts comes amidst heightened scrutiny of the President’s use of emergency powers, which many legal experts and lawmakers believe circumvents necessary checks and balances. The ruling by the CIT has sparked discussions in Congress about reining in the executive’s tariff powers further via legislative measures that could limit unilateral actions by the President, signalling growing bipartisan support for such initiatives.
As the appeal progresses, the existing tariffs remain in place temporarily. However, this uncertainty has profound implications for businesses and negotiations with foreign partners. Countries, including the United Kingdom and China, who have historically engaged in trade discussions with the U.S., may now recalibrate their approaches while awaiting the resolution of this judicial review. The apprehension is compounded by a broader context in which the Trump administration’s trade policies had already provoked international tensions and retaliatory measures from trading partners.
The administration’s legal battles represent not just a dispute over tariffs but a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over the separation of powers in American governance. As President Trump attempts to fortify U.S. trade policy following his return to the White House in 2025, his reliance on broad legal justifications for tariffs has sparked challenges that could redefine the executive’s scope of trade authority moving forward. With existing tariffs still generating billions in revenue—an estimated $40 to $60 billion—questions remain about the potential for refunds if courts ultimately decide against them.
This case not only highlights the contentious nature of contemporary trade policy in the U.S. but also illustrates the inherent instability as businesses and lawmakers alike grapple with the dual forces of executive assertiveness and judicial checks. The unfolding events underscore a critical need for a coherent and unified U.S. trade strategy that prioritises American economic interests while ensuring adherence to constitutional frameworks.
Reference Map:
- Paragraph 1: [1], [2], [3]
- Paragraph 2: [3], [4]
- Paragraph 3: [4], [5]
- Paragraph 4: [2], [3], [5]
- Paragraph 5: [4], [6]
- Paragraph 6: [1], [3]
- Paragraph 7: [5]
Source: Noah Wire Services
Subscribe to Industry Updates
