Court Blocks Trump's Broad Tariffs Citing Constitutional Limits

In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, a federal court has blocked the implementation of sweeping tariffs that targeted goods from nearly every U.S. trading partner. The ruling, issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, centered on the interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which the administration cited as the legal basis for imposing these tariffs.

The three-judge panel, including appointees from both Republican and Democratic administrations, unanimously concluded that the IEEPA does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs. Instead, the court emphasized that Congress holds exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and any delegation of tariff authority to the executive branch must be limited.

The court's opinion highlighted constitutional principles such as the separation of powers and the nondelegation doctrine, stating that an "unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government." The tariffs were thus deemed unconstitutional and their enforcement permanently enjoined.

The tariffs, announced in April as part of what President Trump called "Liberation Day," aimed to address trade deficits and revive American manufacturing jobs. However, the announcement caused turmoil in global financial markets and raised concerns among business leaders about potential economic harm.

Since the announcement, the administration delayed enforcement of certain tariff rates multiple times, including postponing a 50% duty on European Union goods. This created uncertainty for businesses and trading partners.

The legal challenge was brought by the Liberty Justice Center, representing small U.S. businesses harmed by the tariffs, and a coalition of 12 states led by Oregon. Attorney General Dan Rayfield of Oregon praised the ruling, stating it reaffirms the importance of adhering to legal frameworks and prevents trade decisions based solely on presidential discretion.

The White House responded by emphasizing that trade deficits represent a national emergency affecting American workers and industries, and that the administration remains committed to using executive powers to address these challenges.

This ruling underscores the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in shaping U.S. trade policy. It also highlights the legal constraints on using emergency powers for broad economic measures, a precedent with implications for future administrations.