Trump Admin Will Appeal Court’s Ruling on Tariffs (Update – Stay Granted)
This case will likely end up at SCOTUS.
President Donald Trump’s administration filed a notice to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the ruling striking down Trump’s tariffs for a dozen countries.
(I’m writing this in a noisy airport. I hope it makes sense!)
The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s tariffs, stating he exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
(This court is located in New York City. It covers any civil actions regarding international trade laws, obviously including tariffs.)
Five businesses sued the administration: V.O.S Selections, Plastic Services and Products, Microkits, FishUSA, and Terry Precision Cycling.
Eleven states joined the lawsuit: Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont.
The Court pointed to U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, which states that the power to develop and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises belongs to Congress.
The tariffs targeted in the lawsuit:
- Trafficking tariffs: declared national emergency under IEEPA over international cartels, slapping tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China.
- Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs: The other tariffs with our trading partners.
It is important to know there are two types of tariffs.
The judges explained they read the “IEEPA’s provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers,” mainly two of them:
First, § 1702’s delegation of a power to “regulate . . . importation,” read in light of its legislative history and Congress’s enactment of more narrow, non-emergency legislation, at the very least does not authorize the President to impose unbounded tariffs. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs lack any identifiable limits and thus fall outside the scope of § 1702.
Second, IEEPA’s limited authorities may be exercised only to “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared . . . and may not be exercised for any other purpose.” 50 U.S.C. § 1701(b) (emphasis added). As the Trafficking Tariffs do not meet that condition, they fall outside the scope of § 1701.
The panel went with the plaintiffs’ argument that “regulate…importation” in 50 U.S. Code § 1702 – Presidential authorities, specifically (a)(B), have a narrow interpretation.
Citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, courts can “adopt an alternative” interpretation if statutory language might lead to multiple interpretations, including one “that raises serious constitutional doubts.
That means the judges interpreted the section to mean that “under any construction that would comport with the separation-of-powers underpinnings of the nondelegation and major questions doctrines, does not authorize anything as unbounded as the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs.”
They justified the reasoning using The Federalist: “Thus, this court reads ‘regulate . . . importation’ to provide more limited authority so as to avoid constitutional infirmities and maintain the ‘separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government’ that is ‘essential to the preservation of liberty.’ The Federalist No. 51 (Alexander Hamilton or James Madison).”
Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs
The judges claimed Congress passed the IIEPA, which replaced the TWEA (you can read more about that here), to limit presidential power.
Relying on precedent, the judges said “regulate…importation” has a narrow meaning regarding “the power to impose any tariffs whatsoever.”
“Congress’s enactment of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974…grants the President authority to impose restricted tariffs in response to ‘fundamental international payment problems,’ including ‘large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,’ and unfair trading practices, thereby limiting any such authority in the broader emergency powers under IEEPA,” the judges wrote.
At first, I thought the panel agreed that the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs matched Section 122 since Trump imposed them “in response to balance-of-payments deficits.”
But the House International Relations Committee once narrowed Section 122’s interpretation even more:
The legislative history surrounding IEEPA confirms that Congress cabined any presidential authority to impose tariffs in response to balance-of-payments deficits to a narrower, non-emergency statute. To prevent IEEPA from becoming another “essentially . . . unlimited grant of authority,” the House International Relations Committee suggested that “whenever possible, authority for routine, non[-]emergency regulation of international economic transactions which has heretofore been conducted under [TWEA] should be transferred to other legislation,” and further stated that IEEPA “does not include authorities more appropriately lodged in other legislation . . . .” H.R. Rep. No. 95-459 at 7, 10–11. This reflects that in enacting Section 122, Congress narrowed the President’s emergency authority to impose tariffs in response to balance-of-payments deficits. The words “regulate . . . importation” within IEEPA do not, therefore, permit the President to impose tariffs in response to balance-of-payments deficits.
Therefore, these tariffs do not fall under the narrow Section 122 interpretation and falls out of Trump’s authority.
Trafficking Tariffs
The judges agreed with the plaintiffs that these tariffs do not satisfy 50 U.S.C. § 1701, especially the part that the tariffs do not meet the “unusual and extraordinary” condition.
Trump’s administration argued with the “political question doctrine,” meaning it questioned the power of the federal courts to hear cases based on a political question. The principle states that “political questions” belong to the legislative and executive branches.
The panel disagreed, stating:
The court concludes, however, that the question of the scope of § 1701 is (1) a justiciable question of statutory construction that (2) resolves in favor of Plaintiffs’ contention that the Trafficking Tariff Orders do not “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.” 50 U.S.C. § 1701(b). Those Orders thus lie outside the bounds of Congress’s delegation of authority to the executive branch.
UPDATE
*APPEALS COURT TEMPORARILY HALTS RULING AGAINST TRUMP TARIFFS
— Erik Wasson (@elwasson) May 29, 2025
Court of Appeals has reinstated Trump’s tariffs pic.twitter.com/jUKjjuD3an
— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) May 29, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You can’t vote your way out of this.
You can and should, but that effort will take years.
Preferable of course but our side will go the years part while the resistance side won’t be hampered by it.
Not if the rule of law is interpreted to mean that leftist judge are allowed to make law. These judges aren’t accountable to voters and have set themselves up as the ultimate power in this country.
Judicial Tyranny is still Tyranny.
The conclusion of the Supreme Court term next month will determine whether the Deep State and its Federal Judges run America or if the people do. It could get very hot in America starting in July.
I guess putting the US at an economic disadvantage isn’t unusual or extraordinary.
Fat chance Congress will pass legislation to help this president
The president was granted the power to impose tariffs on an emergency basis BY CONGRESS. The judge is the one ignoring the law, as well as violating judicial ethics by involving herself in a political question rather than a question of law.
Notice that she didn’t say Trump didn’t have the authority — she said she doesn’t think he has sufficient reason. Political question, not a question of law.
You are correct. The judges are basically saying their discretion overrides the President’s discretion give to him under this law.
Yes. The question is how much of their authority can Congress delegate to a different branch. There is no question that the judicial branch has no authority under the Constitution over foreign affairs. They are reserved for the legislative and executive branch. This case has far reaching implications and not just for trade. If it gets to SCOTUS it could define just how much Congress can delegate it’s authority including to administrative departments.
The easiest thing in retaliation would be to close the DC Courts and roll them into another jurisdiction. It would only require a simple majority.
Plus, there are no fair trials in DC.
Democrats have devoted themselves to making that business as usual!
So has the GOPe.
I never imagined that the judiciary believed it had veto powers over the executive branch’s policies and orders, but that is essentially what we are watching today.
The Deep State has deep roots in the judiciary as we are learning. What ever this is called, it is not democracy.
Everyone should call their congressman, Senators
Daily
And call all the so call leaders
Make them sweat and k own the American people are tired of being messed with
We stand with President Trump
No we must stand with the law and with the economy not attempting to create national suicide and replace the constitution with an absolutist electoral monarchy.
George Washington and his besties believed otherwise
“No we must stand with the law and with the economy not attempting to create national suicide and replace the constitution with an absolutist electoral monarchy.”
Is that you, Kamala?
Would you like some vinaigrette for that word salad?
That’s what was happening in the “Biden administration”, or didn’t you notice?
.
With a do nothing GOPe Congress, Trump is hamstrung (and no tariffs on imported ham or the imported string to tie Trump up with).
They are trying to get him to ignore the judges so they can impeach him if the Dems win back the house
Anyone voting for a Dem is a lunatic, but they will continue to cheat and oir RNC appears asleep or indifferent since the election, not even trying to win seats such as WI supreme, where Musk put 20 million
Do t have a lot of faith anymore
If 30 million illegals raping, murdering and stealing our treasure doesn’t do it
Only the second coming will
They are trying to get him to ignore the judges so they can impeach him if the Dems win back the house
^^THIS^^
Only quibble I might have is whether they wait to win back the House and Senate or not. There are currently enough sellout GOP to encourage stupidity before 2027.
They don’t need to convict in an impeachment. All they need is a RINO or two, and they can run Impeachment Theatre 3.0 every night on TV. Screaming Dems bellowing “Rule of Law!” at the top of their lungs, happy TV anchors running countdown clocks on how long until the impeachment vote, thousands of subpoenas issued by the committee for the Trump administration, hundreds of staffers being dragged into dark, windowless rooms to be interrogated without lawyers for hours on end. Just like Impeachment Theatre 1.0 and 2.0 which they shoehorned into billions of dollars in taxpayer cash flooding their donor’s shell companies once they got a hold of the gavel.
A president raising taxes without congress should be impeached.
If he wants to raise tariffs without any statutory ability to do so he should go to congress.
There was no crisis before Trump waged economic warfare on planet Earth including the United States and the only crisis today is Trump creating uncertainty in the market.
By the way the idea of American manufacture decline is a LIE.
“There was no crisis before Trump waged economic warfare on planet Earth”
😂😂
Whats truly breathtaking is that you believe every word of what you typed like a true democrat sycophant 😂😂😂 2020-2024 just didnt happen 😂😂
Where the hell have you been since the 1980’s? In a basement or under a rock? If the time span from the 1980’s to present is too long for you perhaps a report from 2024 will make you reconsider your position
“The Census Bureau Confirms US Manufacturing Has Declined
“The latest data from the United States Census Bureau (Census Bureau) demonstrates that manufacturing in America is steadily declining. Once the world leader in manufacturing, the U.S. relinquished that title in 2010, now producing $2.4 trillion less than China in manufacturing.
https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/09/census-bureau-confirms-us-manufacturing-declined/
Note that I’ve sourced my position. You’re welcome to challenge it, but only by showing an-point reference that disputes what I’ve posted.
where is the statutory prohibition?
“By the way the idea of American manufacture decline is a LIE.”
I’m sure you can back this wet fart of a statement up with facts, right?
“There was no crisis before Trump waged economic warfare on planet Earth”
I’d expect this level of idiotic gaslighting from the Junior Twins, but it is beneath you.
Danny – “A president raising taxes without congress should be impeached.”.
Danny – Congress CAN and does delegate authority to the executive branch, especially in matters of foreign policy. It HAS done so in re: tariffs, and past presidents have raised (or lowered) tariffs under that authority – including most recently both Biden (or Biden’s autopen) and Obama.
Tariffs are a matter of foreign policy, and since the founding that’s been been the bailiwick of the executive up to and until you need a declaration of war or a treaty agreed to. Now Clinton was a big proponent of Free Trade so he negotiated to reduce tariffs. Trump is actually also a proponent of Free Trade – but unlike Clinton he’s not a unilateralist – he believes we are ALREADY in trade wars and that our past High-minded stance of “Tariffs are bad, m’kay.” where we never fire back when faced with arguably unfair trading practices is not in our best interests.
But arguing for – or against – tariffs is besides the main point here.
Other presidents have – under the authority granted by Congress – imposed, raised, set or eliminated tariffs – for purely economic reasons – without congressional votes. THIS president is only here invoking the same authority other presidents have invoked.
But, hey OrangeManBad, right?
That last sentence is so dumb even for you, Danny.
“There is none so blind as he who will not see”
Your ignorance is impenetrable, but it also renders you utterly unconvincing to anyone with some sense left, which is reassuring.
Important question, I think: Is this an Article II or Article III court?
The only court established in the Constitution is the Supreme, and they’re equal to the president, not superior. All other courts are established by Congress, Inferior to Congress and also Inferior to the president.
Which doesn’t answer my question. And is a misreading, I think.
Article II courts are set up by the President (the Executive branch) to handle things under Executive branch purview (administrative courts that handle regulatory issues, for example). Article III courts are set up by Congress to reside under the authority of the Supreme Court.
I’m asking which one this court is.
The president does not have power to raise taxes or tariffs alone.
His emergency powers to do it does not include the reasoning Trump which was “I WANTTTSS TO!!!!”.
There was no crisis of any kind to justify the behavior.
where does it say that the president cannot implement tariffs?
It says he may:
investigate, regulate, or prohibit—
(i)any transactions in foreign exchange,
Danny – this argument is giving me flashbacks to my old job…
Anyhow:
You do not dispute that the President has the power to act in this area in “An Emergency.”
Here is the fundamental question that must be answered:
Who gets to decide what constitutes “An Emergency?”
Law says:
the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.
It’s an Art. III court, established by Congress (per Congress’ authority to establish lower courts) to hear cases concerning tariffs and trade.
However, I believe the court doesn’t have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Congress granted the Court of International Trade jurisdiction over trade and tariff disputes (e.g., the authority to make rulings concerning the administration of tariffs and trade laws). But at question here is the authority of the POTUS with respect to tariffs, and not a controversy about the tariffs themselves. The controversy seems to pose either 1.) a political question (Was Trump correct in his declaration of the circumstances that permit him to invoke the authority to unilaterally control tariffs?) best answered by Congress by clarifying the law (this was immediately denied by the court); or 2.) a constitutional question (Does the POTUS have this authority? Or, more basically, does the Congress have the power to delegate any of its authority to the POTUS?), best addressed by courts of law authorized to hear controversies at law, i.e., district, appellate, and Supreme courts.
Now I understand the Chrisley pardon: DJT plans to dress-up Todd and have him argue the case before the Supreme Court. It’s genius!
“House International Relations Committee suggested that….”
Hm. I don’t see that particular ‘suggestion’ codified into legislation, which would have then been signed into law. Since when is a suggestion from the Legislature suddenly binding law upon the Executive branch?
Maybe if it’s background for a textualist, originalist examination of the law it informed.
Otherwise? Nah.
Sorry but the president does not get to rewrite statutes.
Going over what congress meant by crisis is 100% what matters, what Trump wants the statute to say is irrelevant.
If Congress writes “Dog” on legislation that passes and is signed into law, and a judge decides that it means “or Cat or Ferret” because these critters were discussed during the crafting of the legislation, does Dog mean Dog, or does it mean something else like a penumbra or an emanation?
The law expresses the following: I believe they left it broad on purpose.
“extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States”,
If the president over reaches congress has the ability to pass a resolution to end the emergency.
I’m not close to a lawyer but all this seems simple to me. No where does it say the courts have the discretion to decide what is extraordinary.
If the POTUS gets to exercise his judgement over what constitutes a “crisis,” then this is a political question, which no court can address. Trump did declare a “crisis.” The issue is two fold: 1.) Does Trump have the authority to declare the “crisis” necessary to invoke his authority to set tariffs; and 2.) if he does have that authority, can his judgement be challenged in a court.
“Authority” is a question of law that, if it belongs in any court, belongs in a district court and not a court of limited jurisdiction like the Court of International Trade (the dispute here concerns tariffs, but is about presidential authority and judgement). “Judgement” and “policy” are political questions that can only be addressed through political measures – action by Congress or by vote in the next election.
Trump is going to lose, he was 100% ignoring the law.
No people buying Ming Replica Vases, and coffee from outside of America is not a crisis of any kind.
Being the #1 world economy is not a crisis.
Sorry but Trump had two conservative judges in this case.
He is 100% going to lose the appeals.
Maybe try reading the law, instead of pulling opinions out of your backside.
Maybe YOU should try reading the law LIAR
The LAW is crisis.
The TRUMP claim was that Americans buying things from people overseas and getting goods justified his tariffs.
That is NOT a crisis.
Sorry but Trump was openly and flagrantly ignoring American law.
The constitution gave taxes to CONGRESS not president.
Thats not Trumps claim at all. Thats a claim you pulled from your arse 😂😂
But you HAVE to do that to justify, in your eyes, your hatred for America.
We get that…because as a leftist thats really all you have sweetie 😂😂
I suggest you check out what Section 232 of the “Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Steel on U.S. National Security”. While yer at it, read up on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and Section 122 of the Balance of Payments Authority.
Of course you won’t actually DO any of that, since you can’t read and parse, you can only emote.
Come back when your nuts drop.
bloomberg is reporting that an appeals court allows tariffs to stay in effect,..for now
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-29/appeals-court-allows-trump-tariffs-to-stay-in-effect-for-now?srnd=homepage-americas
GREAT .
Commiserations to Danny girl 😂😂
No problem. ‘Regulate importation’ seems broad enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. Create a special space at each dock for the ‘regulation of imports’ to occur. Assign two inspectors to each port. Require ALL containers coming off a vessel transporting goods from one of the Nations we would have applied a tariff upon to pass through the inspection. Obviously the pace of the progress through the inspection will be slow. Vessels will be required to anchor until their turn. No vessel may depart once anchored. While there each vessel subjected to ‘routine’ maritime safety inspection. All crew members ID run to find warrants. Of course all this must done by Federal Govt personnel so they need to install cranes to offload containers one at a time to ‘regulate’ them. Unions gonna be upset but they can take it up with the Judiciary who seemed to prefer an alternative use of Executive Branch power to simple/efficient tariffs.
Will out Political Commissar Judges ever get put in their place?
If nothing else, President Trump is a virtuoso at political theater, so I bet he is playing these arrogant fools to his advantage down the road. By repetitively suckering the progressives into viscous battle for unpopular positions he is letting them convince the Nation that they are the actual enemies of democracy. It is a “rope a dope” strategy that will encourage them to self-destruct, and they are way too proud of themselves to ever see what’s coming.
What’s today?Friday?
What’s ‘THE MORON”S’ tariff policy today?
LAFFRIOT.
Since he NEVER thinks things through and his main goal is to appeal to the ignorant redhat boogerpicks, don’t EVER expect a coherent, consistent policy.
https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/reviving-factory-jobs-is-an-expensive-illusion/
Rather than fix what broke labor markets — rigid institutions, perverse tax codes, and regulatory sprawl — today’s political class is dusting off the old playbook of industrial policy.
The logic goes something like this: government should “bring back” manufacturing jobs by picking industries to support, offering subsidies, or restricting imports. This thinking underlies the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and growing bipartisan calls for trade protectionism.
But industrial policy doesn’t work. It reallocates capital based on political incentives, not economic ones. It props up politically favored firms and industries at the expense of dynamic sectors that don’t have lobbyists in D.C.
More fundamentally, it misunderstands what made America rich in the first place: the freedom to specialize, innovate, and trade. We didn’t prosper by controlling the direction of jobs. We prospered by getting government out of the way.