In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of International Trade has struck down several of former President Donald Trump’s most sweeping tariffs, ruling that he overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The three-judge panel found that the 1977 law does not give the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on goods from nearly every country, a move that has been celebrated by small businesses and a coalition of 12 states that challenged the tariffs in court.
The tariffs in question included the so-called “trafficking,” “worldwide,” and “retaliatory” tariffs. These measures imposed steep duties, 25% on Mexican and Canadian products, 20% on Chinese goods, and a general 10% duty on all imports from U.S. trading partners, with even higher rates for some countries. Trump’s administration had argued these tariffs were necessary to address threats from international criminal cartels and to respond to what it called a “lack of reciprocity” in trade relationships.
Constitution Explicitly Gives Congress, Not The
President, The Power To Regulate Tariffs.
The judges made clear that while IEEPA allows the president to act in response to a declared national emergency, any authority it confers is subject to “meaningful limits” and cannot be used as a blank check for sweeping trade actions. The panel further noted that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would be unconstitutional, citing the separation of powers and doctrines that prevent Congress from handing over its core legislative functions without clear boundaries.
State attorneys general and small business plaintiffs hailed the ruling as a major victory for the rule of law and for American families and businesses. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield stated that the tariffs had “triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses and manufacturers.” New York Attorney General Letitia James echoed this sentiment, calling the tariffs “a massive tax hike” that would have led to more inflation and job losses if allowed to continue.
On the other side, the Trump administration defended its actions, arguing that persistent trade deficits and foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the U.S. constituted a national emergency.
The court’s decision not only vacates the challenged tariff orders but also permanently blocks their operation. While the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction was denied as moot, the ruling sends a strong message about the limits of presidential power in trade policy. It also sets a precedent that could shape future administrations’ use of emergency powers in economic matters.
Ultimately, this case underscores the enduring importance of constitutional checks and balances. By reaffirming Congress’s primary role in setting tariff policy, the court has drawn a clear line against executive overreach, reminding all branches of government that even in times of perceived crisis, the law and the Constitution remain paramount.
Have a Constitutional Law Problem?
Contact
Marini & Associates, P.A.
Sources:
1. https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/federal/articles/2346278?nl_pk=c7e157db-9214-4c8a-8304-373a69b1532e&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tax-authority/federal&utm_content=2025-05-29&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/business/trump-tariffs-blocked-federal-court.html
3. https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-tariffs-blocked-federal-court-2025-5
4. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/5/29/us-trade-court-rules-trumps-sweeping-global-tariffs-are-unlawful
5. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/28/federal-court-strikes-down-trumps-april-2-tariffs-00373843
Read more at: Tax Times blog
