A federal court has struck down the bulk of Trump’s emergency tariffs — calling them unconstitutional and outside presidential authority. The decision could reshape global trade policy.
In a major legal rebuke, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs — imposed under emergency powers — are illegal, challenging one of the administration’s most aggressive economic tools.
The 7–4 decision, issued on August 29, found that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law intended for national emergencies. While IEEPA grants broad executive powers, the court concluded it does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, duties, or taxes.
The ruling specifically targets Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs introduced in April 2025, along with emergency-based levies on China, Canada, and Mexico — which ranged from 10% to 50% on select imports. These were justified by the administration as responses to trade imbalances, immigration concerns, and fentanyl trafficking.
However, the decision does not affect tariffs imposed under other statutes, such as those on steel and aluminum, which remain in place.
The court’s ruling will not be enforced until October 14, allowing time for the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump responded on Truth Social, calling the decision “highly partisan” and warning that it could “literally destroy the United States of America” if upheld.
Meanwhile, White House Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would reverse the decision.
The tariffs have long sparked controversy. Critics argue they raise costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, fuel inflation, and disrupt global supply chains. A coalition of small businesses and 12 states filed suit, calling the tariffs an “existential threat.”
The case — VOS Selections Inc v. Trump — originated in the U.S. Court of International Trade, which ruled in May that the president had exceeded his authority. The appeals court affirmed that decision, setting the stage for a high-stakes Supreme Court battle that could redefine executive power over trade.