On the 28th, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York ruled that the Trump administration’s sweeping tariff policy was unlawful, ordering the rollback of tariff measures imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump administration has filed an appeal. So what does the court’s suspension of the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” really mean?
Court: Trump’s “Reciprocal Tariffs” Are Illegal
In a 49-page decision released on the 28th, the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked the Trump administration from enforcing executive orders that imposed tariffs on multiple countries under the 1977 IEEPA.
Back in February, the Trump administration used the IEEPA to impose tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China. On April 2, it expanded the policy to apply so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on all U.S. trade partners.
According to the latest U.S. media reports, the United States has traditionally invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sanctions or freeze assets abroad. Trump is the first U.S. president to use the law as a basis for broadly imposing tariffs.
In its ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade stated that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to issue any global tariff orders, retaliatory tariff measures, or tariff orders related to unlawful trade practices.
The decision declared that the relevant executive orders imposing tariffs must be repealed and their enforcement permanently prohibited.
The court further noted that if these executive orders are deemed illegal in relation to the plaintiffs, they are illegal for everyone.
U.S. media also reported that the White House must complete the process of suspending the tariff measures within ten days.
Trump’s Tariff Strategy Takes a Hit
The U.S. Court of International Trade, which rules on disputes related to international trade, issued the decision. Its rulings can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. media analysts say this ruling represents one of the most significant legal setbacks for the current Trump administration. It effectively undermines the legal foundation of Trump’s tariff war during his second term.
If the administration is barred from invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), it may be forced to adopt a slower approach—using other trade laws to conduct lengthy investigations before applying pressure on trade partners.
Many trade experts believe that the U.S. has long used tariffs as leverage to pressure trade partners into making greater concessions. However, the latest court ruling is expected to make ongoing negotiations with some of those partners even more difficult.
Wendy Cutler, Director at the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former U.S. trade official, said the ruling has thrown U.S. trade policy “into disarray.” She noted, “Trade partners who were reluctantly negotiating under the 90-day tariff reprieve may now halt further concessions until the U.S. judicial system provides clearer guidance on the tariff dispute.”
Scott Lincicome, Deputy Director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, stated in a press release: “The ruling gives foreign governments a powerful new bargaining chip in trade negotiations.”
White House Responds: ‘Judicial Coup’
White House spokesperson Kush Desai responded on the 28th, stating that the U.S. trade deficit with other countries constitutes a “national emergency,” which “has devastated American communities, left our workforce behind, and weakened the defense industrial base.” He added, “How to properly respond to a national emergency should not be decided by unelected judges.”
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote on social media: “The judicial coup is out of control.”
According to U.S. media reports, just minutes after the U.S. Court of International Trade announced its ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal, challenging the court’s authority.
Democrats: Trump Administration Abused the Law
New York Governor Kathy Hochul welcomed the decision on social media: “We sued the Trump administration over its absurd tariff policy — and we won!” She added, “New York is fighting to stop these tariffs and put money back in people’s pockets.”
Representative Gregory Meeks, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the ruling confirms what many have believed all along — that “these tariffs are an illegal abuse of executive power.” He stated, “Trump’s declaration of a fake national emergency to justify a global trade war was a ridiculous and unlawful misuse of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”
Five More Tariff Lawsuits Still Pending
The court’s ruling addressed lawsuits filed on April 14 and April 23 by five small U.S. businesses and twelve U.S. states challenging the federal government. According to court documents, five additional tariff-related cases remain pending before the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The businesses involved argued that the U.S. government has no authority to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval and called for an end to the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal basis for such measures.
In their lawsuit, the 12 U.S. states claimed that the Trump administration’s tariff policy was driven by “impulse rather than a legitimate exercise of legal authority.” They asked the court to declare the “reciprocal tariffs” unlawful and to block their enforcement.
According to Reuters, at least five lawsuits related to Trump’s tariff policies are currently pending.
Leave a comment