In a thunderous rebuke from the bench, a U.S. trade court has torpedoed former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff orders, declaring them an unconstitutional overstep of executive authority. The Court of International Trade handed down the ruling Wednesday, blocking a slate of blanket tariffs Trump imposed under the guise of national emergency.
The court’s stance was clear: only Congress holds the power to regulate trade across borders. That authority, rooted in the Constitution, can’t be sidestepped—even by invoking emergencies.
“The issue isn’t whether tariffs are wise or foolish,” the judges noted, cutting through political fog. “It’s whether the law allows the president to do this. It doesn’t.”
The three-judge panel issued a permanent injunction against the tariffs and gave the administration ten days to write orders complying with the ruling. Not missing a beat, Trump’s team filed an appeal and openly questioned whether the court had the authority to stand in his way.
This legal blow strikes at the heart of Trump’s economic nationalism. Since January, his administration had deployed tariffs—some reaching 54%—under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a Cold War-era statute designed for actual emergencies, not trade imbalances.
The court wasn’t asked to review sector-specific tariffs on autos, steel, or aluminum, which rely on different laws. But the ruling shreds the legal foundation for the wider trade war Trump ignited.
Markets responded like someone popped champagne. The dollar surged, Wall Street perked up, and even overseas markets cheered.
The decision stemmed from lawsuits filed by both a coalition of small U.S. businesses and a dozen states. Plaintiffs included a New York wine importer and a Virginia educational toy company—companies that had struggled under the erratic tariff regime.
In sweeping language, the judges declared the tariffs unlawful for all, not just the plaintiffs. “There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief,” the opinion read.
Oregon’s Attorney General called the tariffs “reckless and devastating,” while others called the ruling a badly needed reminder that the law still sets limits.
The White House, unsurprisingly, pushed back. A spokesperson insisted that the trade deficit posed a true national emergency that had “decimated American communities” and dismissed the court’s role in shaping emergency policy. “It is not for unelected judges to decide,” came the sharp retort.
But this ruling doesn’t just stop Trump’s tariff train—it throws the track into doubt. Without the club of sudden tariffs, his leverage in negotiations with the EU, China, and others becomes far more uncertain.
Trump had argued that the trade deficit—now hovering around $1.2 trillion—justified unilateral action. The court wasn’t buying it.
For now, the decision reshapes the landscape of American trade policy. And unless overturned on appeal, it clips the wings of a strategy that once defined a presidency.
