The Blubber

A federal court on Wednesday blocked many of the broad tariffs enacted by former President Trump against nearly all foreign nations, ruling that he had overstepped his legal authority.

The decision, handed down by a panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade, stopped the sweeping 10% tariffs Trump imposed on nearly all of America’s trading partners during last month’s so-called “Liberation Day.” The ruling also suspended a separate set of tariffs aimed specifically at China, Mexico, and Canada, which the Trump administration had defended on grounds of combating drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

The administration argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) gave the president power to regulate trade during emergencies. However, the court disagreed, stating that this law does not grant the president unlimited tariff-setting authority.

“The court does not interpret IEEPA to allow such expansive powers and invalidates the contested tariffs,” the panel wrote in its opinion.

The judges found that the global 10% tariffs were meant to address trade imbalances—a goal unrelated to the emergency scenarios the IEEPA covers—meaning such actions should be governed by standard trade legislation rather than emergency authority. The panel also ruled that the tariffs against China, Canada, and Mexico were not justified by the threats cited in the executive orders used to impose them.

The ruling came from three judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.

The Trump administration has indicated it plans to appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the administration’s trade strategy, saying that chronic trade deficits have devastated American communities and constitute a national emergency. “It is not the role of unelected judges to determine how to respond to national emergencies,” Desai said. “President Trump promised to prioritize America, and we will use all available executive powers to address this crisis and restore American greatness.”

Tariffs have been a cornerstone of Trump’s second-term agenda. He argues that they are essential for protecting American industry and correcting unfair global trade practices. However, the policy has unsettled financial markets and faced opposition from both Democrats and some Republicans.

While Trump has defended his tariff initiatives, he has paused many of them to open negotiations with U.S. trade partners. In April, a set of “reciprocal” tariffs targeting dozens of countries was suspended for at least three months. Goods covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement were spared from 25% tariffs, and heavy tariffs on Chinese imports were reduced amid ongoing talks.

Legal challenges to the tariffs have come from businesses, Democratic-led states, and other plaintiffs. The court’s decision Wednesday stemmed from two such cases—one brought by a coalition of companies claiming economic harm and another filed by several state governments.

Some of the legal arguments raised in the lawsuits rely on doctrines favored by conservative legal scholars to limit executive power. These include the “major questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to explicitly authorize agencies to decide matters of major economic impact, and the “nondelegation” doctrine, which argues that Congress cannot hand over its lawmaking authority to the executive branch.