US Court of International Trade Blocks Some Trump Tariffs

[Wrestleknownothing]

A panel of federal judges on Wednesday blocked President Trump from imposing some of his steepest tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, finding in two cases that he vastly overstepped his ability to issue those expansive duties under federal law.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of International Trade, delivered an early yet significant setback to Mr. Trump in his campaign to strike a series of agreements that reorient the nation’s trading relationships, setting up a legal fight that could soon reach the Supreme Court.

The cases centered on the president’s use of a 1977 federal economic emergency law to issue many of his steep duties, including some of his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, and his “reciprocal” rates on much of the rest of the world, which Mr. Trump announced and then suspended in April.

The law does not specify tariffs as a tool available to the president to protect the United States from economic threats. But Mr. Trump has invoked its powers anyway, citing a need to take drastic action in response to a wide variety of urgent matters — including the flow of fentanyl into the United States, for example, and the country’s persistent trade deficit with much of the world.

[Tripnsweep]

A guy who hasn't read a book in years and doesn't know if he's supposed to uphold the US Constitution tried to do something he isn't allowed to? 

[mspart]

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/05/29/liberation-day-meets-deliberation-day-court-strikes-down-trump-tariffs-in-the-midst-of-trade-negotiations/

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” collided with deliberation day in the courts, and it did not go well. The Court of International Trade ruled that the President lacks the authority to impose his massive tariffs worldwide.

But all is not lost for Trump’s tariffs.

The three-judge panel held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) does not give the president “such unbounded authority.”

While some have criticized the court as a “judicial coup,” it is a well-reasoned and good-faith decision from judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump.

While the court, in my view, should have issued a stay pending appeal, a wide array of experts have questioned the authority under the IEEPA, which is designed to address a national emergency. The authority does not mention tariffs and has never been used for tariffs. There’s a good chance the Supreme Court upholds the ruling.

The Trump administration is now appealing and pushing for a stay to prevent this ruling from having a disruptive impact on the nearly completed array of trade deals.

Rejecting Trump’s authority under IEEPA does not mean he lacks all authority for tariffs. The administration is correct in arguing that Congress has repeatedly deferred to presidents on tariffs, granting them sweeping authority.

For example, the ruling does not affect Trump’s “sector tariffs” under the Trade Expansion Act, which impose 25% levies on steel, aluminum, and auto imports.

Likewise, the court acknowledged that Trump has the authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address “fundamental international payment problems,” including trade deficits. After conducting further investigation into these problems, he can then impose long-term tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

Interestingly, Turley is not the Trump apologist some of you on here think.   He writes based on facts on data available.   He says the court's decision is well reasoned and in good faith.   The court did not say Trump can't levy tariffs as he writes.   As noted, they said he could.   Just not in the way he did most of them.   See bolded and underlined section. 

mspart

 

 

[ionel]

If only we could get a judge to rule that "the President can not be President" then all our problems would be gone.  

[Scouts Honor]

aren't they back on now? 

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

aren't they back on now? 

Yes, the federal appeals court issued a temporary injunction allowing the plaintiffs one week to respond to the admin's objections, then the admin gets until until June 9 to reply to that. The appeals court will then rule at some point. Whoever loses will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court (assuming that is next, and they will take up the case).

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

[El Luchador]

13 minutes ago, Saylors_Tiny_Willie said:

Alex Cole doesn't have good reading skills. When you make childish insults on the regular I guess childish insults are amusing to you, even if not supported by the facts. 

[Offthemat]

Now Biden knew how to swing a deal.  You want to float a balloon?  Show me…uh, Hunter the money. 

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

Alex Cole doesn't have good reading skills. When you make childish insults on the regular I guess childish insults are amusing to you, even if not supported by the facts. 

Are you trying to say that the picture represents something that isn't true?

[El Luchador]

Well his conclusion isn't supported by the details, but I'm sure it's appeals to you childish emotions. 

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

13 hours ago, El Luchador said:

Well his conclusion isn't supported by the details, but I'm sure it's appeals to you childish emotions. 

Is English a foreign language to you?