Federal court reinstates Trump tariffs amid legal dispute

A federal appeals court in Washington has temporarily reinstated former President Donald Trump’s tariffs, just one day after a lower trade court ruled that the measures exceeded presidential authority. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued the decision on Thursday without providing an explanation, but it gave the plaintiffs until June 5 to respond.

This temporary hold came after the Trump administration filed an emergency request, claiming that maintaining the tariffs was essential for national security. The White House welcomed the decision. “Even if we lose tariff cases, we will find another way,” stated trade adviser Peter Navarro.

While the administration hasn’t finalized its course of action, the temporary reinstatement gives it room to maneuver. According to The Wall Street Journal, the White House is considering invoking a little-known clause of the 1974 Trade Act to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. This would serve as a temporary solution, giving officials time to create tailored tariff policies under another section of the law that addresses unfair trade practices.

This move follows a surprise ruling from the US Court of International Trade, which struck down Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs on goods from key trading partners like Canada, Mexico, and China. The court determined that using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify these tariffs was an overreach, as the law was designed for specific emergency situations and not for broad economic actions like tariff imposition.

Legal experts argue that the IEEPA, enacted in 1977, is too limited in scope to support tariffs of this magnitude. “It doesn’t even mention tariffs,” said Bruce Fein, a former US associate deputy attorney general. He pointed instead to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs during national emergencies, but only after a formal investigation by the Commerce Department and only on specific products.

Despite the appeals court’s intervention, the initial ruling dealt a blow to Trump’s economic agenda, already criticized for hurting consumer confidence and contributing to a downgrade in the US credit rating.

Peter Harrell, a legal fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted that if the trade court’s decision is upheld, importers may be eligible for refunds on the tariffs already paid, although the government is expected to delay repayments until all appeals are resolved.

Legal scholars argue that Congress—not the president—has the ultimate authority over tariffs. “The president is using a law meant to limit his power to rewrite global trade rules,” said Georgetown Law professor Greg Schaffer.

The trade court’s ruling did not affect tariffs imposed under other laws, such as the Trade Expansion Act, which the Trump administration used to justify duties on steel, aluminum, and cars. The White House is also exploring new tariffs, including those on pharmaceutical ingredients from China, citing national security concerns over US dependence on foreign sources for key drugs.

Bruce Fein emphasized that the real question is not whether a president can impose tariffs, but under what legal conditions. “He can under the 1962 law, provided there is a thorough study and a product-specific justification,” he said. “If that’s not acceptable, the president should seek legislative changes from Congress.”