A major legal and political development unfolded on Friday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled, in a 7–4 decision, that former President Donald Trump had acted unlawfully in using emergency economic powers to impose sweeping global tariffs.
The judgment could have significant consequences, both domestically and internationally, as it casts doubt on Trump’s most prominent trade policy tools and potentially obliges the U.S. government to repay billions of dollars in duties collected under his administration.
Read- World Not Only Watching But Counting On India: PM Modi In Tokyo
The case centred on Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute that allows presidents to take economic actions in extraordinary circumstances involving national emergencies.
However, the appeals court found that this law does not grant presidents expansive authority to impose broad-based tariffs, especially in cases not meeting the strict requirements of a genuine national emergency.
The majority opinion stated bluntly that Congress never delegated such sweeping tariff-making powers to the executive branch. Instead, tariff-setting authority largely rests with Congress, except for limited national security contexts legislated under specific statutes. Trump’s far-reaching executive orders, which levied tariffs on trading partners across multiple fronts, were therefore deemed unlawful.
The decision, however, does not take immediate effect. In an acknowledgment of the economic and logistical disruption that sudden tariff removal could create, the court allowed the current duties to remain in place until October 14, giving Trump a window to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This temporary stay ensures continuity in tariff collection and trade enforcement but also highlights the urgency of the legal and political battle over Trump’s trade agenda.
Read- ‘Like Mouse Hitting Elephant’: American Economist On US Action Against India
Read- Sudarshan Chakra Will Be India’s Own Iron Dome
The implications of this ruling extend far beyond technical legal matters. Trump’s tariff regime was a central pillar of his economic and foreign policy, especially his confrontational stance toward China and his pressure campaigns on allies such as the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Mexico.
These measures were often justified on grounds of “reciprocity,” national security, and economic protectionism. The invalidation of such executive authority raises questions about the durability of Trump-era trade agreements, including negotiations that hinged on tariff leverage. It also threatens to weaken ongoing enforcement against Chinese exports and cross-border fentanyl trafficking, which Trump tied directly to his tariff measures.
Politically, Trump reacted with characteristic defiance. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he condemned the ruling as “highly partisan” and predicted catastrophic consequences if tariffs were rolled back, warning it would cause economic weakness and undermine American strength.
He vowed an appeal to the Supreme Court, declaring confidence that the justices would side with him and allow tariffs to remain a tool for protecting national interests. Trump framed the dispute not merely as a legal technicality but as a battle for the United States’ financial and strategic independence.
The case itself was instigated by lawsuits filed by smaller importers hurt by rising duties, as well as Democratic-led states challenging the executive overreach. Importantly, the judges emphasised that their ruling was not about the wisdom or effectiveness of tariffs as a policy tool.
Instead, they clarified the legal boundaries of presidential authority under IEEPA, underscoring that the executive branch cannot unilaterally assume sweeping tariff powers not explicitly delegated by Congress. This delineation reflects the judiciary’s broader role of checking executive overreach and preserving the constitutional separation of powers in trade policy.
In terms of impact, if the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, it would set a precedent that sharply limits presidential discretion over trade sanctions and duties absent congressional authorisation. This could restrain not only Trump but any future president seeking to employ tariffs as a unilateral negotiating weapon.
Conversely, if overturned, the decision could open the door for expanded executive control over trade policy, fundamentally reshaping the balance between Congress and the presidency in economic governance.
In conclusion, the Federal Circuit’s ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over U.S. tariff policy and presidential authority. Beyond the billions of dollars at stake, it touches on constitutional questions of separation of powers, the future of U.S. trade relations, and the balance between legislative intent and executive ambition.
With Trump preparing a Supreme Court appeal and the tariffs scheduled to expire in mid-October unless that court intervenes, the coming weeks will prove decisive for the fate of America’s trade strategy and the limits of presidential power in economic emergencies.
Agencies
Agency
