Trump’s tariffs are back on for now as he fights trade court ruling, appeals panel rules

Administration’s tariff agenda is temporarily reinstated while legal challenges play out

A federal appeals court has paused a seismic ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that found Donald Trump “exceeded his authority” with his sweeping tariff agenda.

A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily reinstated Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs Thursday while legal challenges play out.

The decision from the appellate court panel follows a second federal court decision that found Trump cannot “unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Wednesday’s decision from trade court judges similarly ruled that the president’s “Liberation Day” tariffs — which established a 10 percent baseline tax on all imports and even higher taxes on imports from nearly every trading partner — illegally exceeded authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Judges also rejected the president’s use of emergency powers to tax Mexican, Canadian and Chinese imports because those tariffs don’t specifically “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared,” as required by law.

A federal appeals court has temporarily paused the first of two decisions that blocked Trump’s sweeping tariff agenda while legal challenges play out (AFP via Getty Images)

“An unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,” the judges wrote in their unsigned order on Wednesday.

The three judges on that Manhattan panel were appointed by different presidents: Ronald Reagan appointee Judge Jane Restani, Barack Obama appointee Judge Gary Katzmann and Trump appointee Judge Timothy Reif.

The president’s attempt to delegate “unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional,” they wrote.

That judgment is now “temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers,” appellate judges stated. The freeze is expected to stay in place until at least June 9, the deadline for both sides to submit their arguments.

Trump’s tariffs being back in place is a blow to the UK, which is still grappling with the 25 per ent sector-specific steel, aluminum and car tariffs imposed by the president despite this month’s trade deal.

The measures in the deal are yet to be implemented, and Sir Keir Starmer’s business secretary Jonathan Reynolds will meet his U.S. counterpart next week in a bid to set a timeline for lifting the 25 percent levies.

If Trump’s appeal is defeated, it could end up being a coup for Sir Keir, who would have negotiated a route out of the damaging tariffs on cars, while the blanket 10 percent reciprocal tariffs would fall back to an average of around 2.5 percent.

But the uncertainty is causing chaos for companies attempting to trade between Britain and the United States with no clear indication of what will happen next.

Trump’s officials have raged at federal judges and the plaintiffs bringing cases against them after a series of court rulings defanged the president’s agenda and his executive orders that tested the limits of executive authority.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller called the trade court’s ruling “judicial tyranny.”

Before Thursday’s order from the appeals court, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt unloaded on the judiciary as she vowed the administration would take court rulings against Trump’s tariff agenda to the Supreme Court.

She accused judges of “brazenly abusing” the courts to “usurp the authority of President Trump.”

“There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process,” she told reporters at the White House. “America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.”