U.S. Federal Court Blocks Trump's Tariffs Citing Congressional Authority
A federal court rules that President Trump's tariffs exceed his presidential powers, asserting that only Congress can impose such duties.
A recent ruling by the United States International Trade Court (ITC) in New York has determined that President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on imports are unconstitutional.
The court found that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a statute that allows him to act in emergencies.
The ITC judges stated that while the U.S. has the right to increase tariffs on imports, this power rests solely with Congress.
The court's decision, announced on May 28, highlights that Trump's attempt to impose a blanket tariff of at least 10% on nearly all goods entering the U.S., with some products facing tariffs as high as 50%, exceeded the powers granted to the president under the IEEPA.
The IEEPA permits the president to implement economic sanctions in response to an "extraordinary and unusual threat" but does not authorize indefinite tariff imposition.
The ruling emphasizes that any interpretation granting unlimited tariff authority to the president is unconstitutional.
One judge commented that such an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would equate to a relinquishment of legislative power, contravening the U.S. Constitution.
Historically, tariff imposition is a legislative function, and Trump had contended that action was necessary to address the country’s trade deficits, labeling it a national emergency.
Trump’s administration has indicated that they will appeal the ruling, with a White House spokesperson criticizing the decision as an overreach by unelected judges, asserting that the administration remains committed to using executive powers to defend national interests.
The ITC's ruling follows recent tariffs imposed by Trump on various countries, including Canada, China, and Mexico, which he argued were necessary to combat illegal immigration and opioid trafficking.
Trump has also framed tariffs as a tool for negotiating better trade agreements, asserting that they would repatriate jobs and generate federal revenue to ameliorate budget deficits.
The international response has been marked by escalating tit-for-tat tariffs, notably between the U.S. and China.
As both nations raised their tariffs in retaliation to each other, rates reportedly peaked at 125% and 145% respectively, compared to pre-April levels.
An agreement in mid-May led to a temporary halting of these heightenings, with tariffs reverting to 10% on U.S. products and 30% on Chinese products.
On May 23, Trump also accused the European Union of failing to negotiate trade agreements, threatening to impose a 50% tariff on all imports from the EU, although he later postponed this decision until July 9.
The tariffs announced on April 2 significantly unsettled global financial markets and prompted many economists to revise forecasts for U.S. economic growth downward.
The ITC’s decision was influenced by two recent lawsuits filed by a coalition of twelve U.S. states, including Arizona, Oregon, New York, and Minnesota, as well as a group of American companies.
The plaintiffs argued that Trump improperly invoked emergency powers to impose tariffs, stressing that this authority belongs to Congress, a position echoed by the court.
The ruling drew reactions from various officials, with Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield asserting that it reaffirmed the rule of law and the necessity for commercial decisions to adhere to legislative processes.
Additionally, Gregory Meeks, the Democratic minority leader on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that the ruling confirmed the tariffs constituted an illegal overreach of executive power.
The court found that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a statute that allows him to act in emergencies.
The ITC judges stated that while the U.S. has the right to increase tariffs on imports, this power rests solely with Congress.
The court's decision, announced on May 28, highlights that Trump's attempt to impose a blanket tariff of at least 10% on nearly all goods entering the U.S., with some products facing tariffs as high as 50%, exceeded the powers granted to the president under the IEEPA.
The IEEPA permits the president to implement economic sanctions in response to an "extraordinary and unusual threat" but does not authorize indefinite tariff imposition.
The ruling emphasizes that any interpretation granting unlimited tariff authority to the president is unconstitutional.
One judge commented that such an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would equate to a relinquishment of legislative power, contravening the U.S. Constitution.
Historically, tariff imposition is a legislative function, and Trump had contended that action was necessary to address the country’s trade deficits, labeling it a national emergency.
Trump’s administration has indicated that they will appeal the ruling, with a White House spokesperson criticizing the decision as an overreach by unelected judges, asserting that the administration remains committed to using executive powers to defend national interests.
The ITC's ruling follows recent tariffs imposed by Trump on various countries, including Canada, China, and Mexico, which he argued were necessary to combat illegal immigration and opioid trafficking.
Trump has also framed tariffs as a tool for negotiating better trade agreements, asserting that they would repatriate jobs and generate federal revenue to ameliorate budget deficits.
The international response has been marked by escalating tit-for-tat tariffs, notably between the U.S. and China.
As both nations raised their tariffs in retaliation to each other, rates reportedly peaked at 125% and 145% respectively, compared to pre-April levels.
An agreement in mid-May led to a temporary halting of these heightenings, with tariffs reverting to 10% on U.S. products and 30% on Chinese products.
On May 23, Trump also accused the European Union of failing to negotiate trade agreements, threatening to impose a 50% tariff on all imports from the EU, although he later postponed this decision until July 9.
The tariffs announced on April 2 significantly unsettled global financial markets and prompted many economists to revise forecasts for U.S. economic growth downward.
The ITC’s decision was influenced by two recent lawsuits filed by a coalition of twelve U.S. states, including Arizona, Oregon, New York, and Minnesota, as well as a group of American companies.
The plaintiffs argued that Trump improperly invoked emergency powers to impose tariffs, stressing that this authority belongs to Congress, a position echoed by the court.
The ruling drew reactions from various officials, with Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield asserting that it reaffirmed the rule of law and the necessity for commercial decisions to adhere to legislative processes.
Additionally, Gregory Meeks, the Democratic minority leader on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that the ruling confirmed the tariffs constituted an illegal overreach of executive power.
