🗓️ Published: May 29, 2025

Trump Tariffs Ruling Limits Presidential Power

A U.S. trade court has struck down most of Donald Trump’s tariffs, stating the president exceeded his authority. The Trump tariffs ruling emphasized that only Congress can regulate trade with foreign nations.

Trump Tariffs Ruling Shakes Markets

The ruling blocked tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court ruled that this law does not allow blanket trade measures. Financial markets welcomed the decision. The U.S. dollar surged, and equity markets rose across Asia. Wall Street futures gained momentum after the announcement.

A three-judge panel explained that the decision was not about the wisdom of using tariffs. Instead, they concluded the law doesn’t permit such presidential action. Within 10 days, the administration must issue new orders reflecting the court’s injunction.

Appeal Filed, But Court Firm on Limits

Shortly after the decision, the Trump administration filed an appeal. Officials questioned the court’s authority. The ruling does not affect industry-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, or automobiles, which fall under different laws.

The Manhattan-based Court of International Trade hears such disputes. Its decisions can move up to the U.S. Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court if necessary.

Legal, Political, and Global Reactions

Trump’s trade strategy relied on quick tariff changes to pressure partners. These moves disrupted supply chains and created uncertainty for businesses. Many firms struggled to manage operations under the shifting policies.

The White House defended the tariffs. It called trade deficits a national emergency that harmed American industries and workers. The spokesperson argued that unelected judges should not override emergency decisions made by the president.

Still, the Trump tariffs ruling could weaken ongoing trade talks with the EU, China, and others. Analysts at Goldman Sachs noted that Trump could still pursue sector-specific tariffs through other legal channels.

Businesses and States Push Back

Two lawsuits triggered the ruling. One came from five small U.S. businesses. The other was led by 12 states, including Oregon. These groups claimed the tariffs were unlawful and economically harmful.

The court agreed. Judges stated that if the tariffs were illegal for the plaintiffs, they were illegal for all. Several more lawsuits against Trump’s tariffs are pending.

Oregon’s Attorney General called the ruling a victory for legal checks and economic fairness. He said the law cannot bend to presidential whims.

Trump justified the tariffs under IEEPA, which is usually used for sanctions or freezing foreign assets. He was the first president to use it for blanket tariffs. Critics said businesses hadn’t yet paid many of the tariffs, so they weren’t harmed. But the court disagreed.

Tariff Policy Now in Limbo

Trump announced the initial 10% tariff in early April, targeting all imports. He later paused country-specific tariffs for 90 days. By mid-May, the U.S. and China agreed to reduce duties temporarily during ongoing talks.

Initial responses from global leaders were cautious. Japan and South Korea said they would review the decision’s impact. Hong Kong’s finance chief said the ruling could force a more reasonable U.S. trade approach.