A US federal appeals court has ruled that most tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump are unlawful, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown that could reshape presidential authority on trade policy.
In a 7-4 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs – affecting dozens of countries – and other levies imposed on China, Mexico and Canada. The ruling stated that the president does not have unlimited power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The court found that the IEEPA “neither mentions tariffs nor contains safeguards” allowing a president to set levies, emphasising that tariff-making is “a core Congressional power”. Judges added it was unlikely Congress intended to delegate such powers when the law was passed in 1977.
Trump introduced sweeping tariffs in April, declaring a baseline 10% duty on almost every country and additional “reciprocal” tariffs. He justified the move by declaring a national trade emergency, claiming trade imbalances threatened US security. The tariffs were challenged by small businesses and a coalition of states.
The appeals court ruling, following an earlier decision by the Court of International Trade, will not take effect until 14 October to allow the administration to appeal. The White House is expected to petition the Supreme Court, where six of nine justices are Republican appointees, including three nominated by Trump.
Reacting on Truth Social, Trump criticised the court as “highly partisan” and warned that overturning his tariffs would “destroy the United States of America”. He argued their removal would cause “financial weakness” and compared the risks to the 1929 stock market crash.
The ruling applies to most of Trump’s tariff programme but excludes steel and aluminium tariffs, which were imposed under separate presidential authority. It also raises questions over trade deals other nations struck with Washington based on reduced tariff rates.
Legal analysts note the case could test the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine”, under which it has previously limited presidents’ ability to use existing laws for sweeping policy changes. If the court agrees to hear the case, it will decide whether Trump’s tariff programme was a lawful extension of presidential powers or an overreach into Congressional authority.
