In a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump’s trade tactics, a U.S. appeals court has ruled that his use of an emergency law to impose global tariffs was an unconstitutional overreach of power. The decision strikes at the heart of his “America First” economic strategy and its reliance on unilateral executive action.
The court determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump invoked by declaring the U.S. trade deficit a national crisis, was not a valid legal basis for his tariff regime. The judges pointed out that the legislation was created to give presidents tools to deal with foreign adversaries in emergencies, not to manage trade policy with allies.
This ruling could invalidate numerous handshake agreements the Trump administration made with other countries, which agreed to quotas and other concessions to lower their tariff burden. The court’s decision suggests these agreements were based on an illegal premise, throwing their future into question. It represents a significant victory for importers and free-trade advocates who challenged the policy.
The former president’s promise to appeal to the Supreme Court means the economic uncertainty will continue. The case elevates a critical debate about the separation of powers, forcing the nation’s highest court to potentially draw a clearer line between the president’s emergency authority and the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce.