US President Donald Trump has defended his sweeping tariff programme after a federal appeals court ruled most of those levies unlawful. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a 7 to 4 decision saying the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorise the broad, open-ended tariffs the administration imposed.
The court stayed its ruling until 14 October, leaving the duties in place while the government considers a Supreme Court appeal.
The president’s response on Truth Social
Trump reacted forcefully on his platform Truth Social. He wrote: “Without Tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated.”
He also posted: “In a 7 to 4 Opinion, a Radical Left group of judges didn't care, but one Democrat, Obama appointed, actually voted to save our Country. I would like to thank him for his Courage! He loves and respects the U.S.A,” and earlier added, “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”
What the court said and why it matters
The appeals court, in an unsigned opinion reported by CNN, affirmed a lower court’s judgement and found that using IEEPA to impose wide-ranging tariffs represented an unprecedented overreach of executive power. The judges said the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs, not the president. That legal finding undercuts the administration’s claim that emergency powers allowed the April and February tariffs to cover nearly all imports.
Which tariffs were struck down and what survives
The ruling addressed two main sets of duties: the reciprocal tariffs announced in April and a February package aimed at China, Canada and Mexico. Together those levies were intended to touch roughly 69 per cent of US imports. If the appeals court decision stands, that reach will shrink to about 16 per cent.
Some targeted measures remain unaffected. Sector-specific duties, including the steel and aluminium tariffs imposed under Section 232, were not part of this litigation. The Commerce Department said it has broadened Section 232 coverage, raising duties as high as 50 per cent on more than 400 additional product categories.
Allies push back and outline next moves
Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to the president, dismissed the appeals court majority on Fox News as “politicians in black robes.” He framed the dissenting opinions as a possible path to reversal and said: “We feel very optimistic. If we lose the case, President Trump is right. It will be the end of the United States.”
Legal sources and reporting in The Wall Street Journal say the administration is preparing to broaden sector-specific tariffs, such as steel and aluminium, to blunt the impact of the court challenge.
Industry and legal perspectives
Law firms watching the case see Section 232 measures as harder to overturn. “Section 232 tariffs are central to President Trump’s tariff strategy. They aren’t the target of the pending litigation, and they’re more likely to survive a legal challenge and continue into the next presidential administration, which is what we saw with the aluminum and steel tariffs originally imposed under the first Trump administration,” Mike Lowell, a partner at Reed Smith, told CNBC.
Who brought the case and what happens next
The legal challenge was launched by Democratic-led states and a coalition of small import businesses. They argued that IEEPA does not authorise the kind of broad tariff scheme the administration adopted. The appeals court allowed the duties to remain in force while it stayed the ruling through 14 October, giving the administration time to seek Supreme Court review. If the high court declines to hear the case or upholds the appeals court, most of the reciprocal and blanket duties will be removed.
The tariffs and the legal fight have already altered global trade patterns. Some countries agreed to revised terms with Washington, including the UK, Japan and the EU. Others have faced steeper penalties. India, for example, has been hit with a 50 per cent duty, one of the highest levies, in part over continued imports of Russian oil. For now importers and manufacturers must plan around duties that remain in place while the courts consider the dispute.
(With inputs from TOI, ANI)
The court stayed its ruling until 14 October, leaving the duties in place while the government considers a Supreme Court appeal.
The president’s response on Truth Social
Trump reacted forcefully on his platform Truth Social. He wrote: “Without Tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated.”
He also posted: “In a 7 to 4 Opinion, a Radical Left group of judges didn't care, but one Democrat, Obama appointed, actually voted to save our Country. I would like to thank him for his Courage! He loves and respects the U.S.A,” and earlier added, “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”
What the court said and why it matters
The appeals court, in an unsigned opinion reported by CNN, affirmed a lower court’s judgement and found that using IEEPA to impose wide-ranging tariffs represented an unprecedented overreach of executive power. The judges said the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs, not the president. That legal finding undercuts the administration’s claim that emergency powers allowed the April and February tariffs to cover nearly all imports.
Which tariffs were struck down and what survives
The ruling addressed two main sets of duties: the reciprocal tariffs announced in April and a February package aimed at China, Canada and Mexico. Together those levies were intended to touch roughly 69 per cent of US imports. If the appeals court decision stands, that reach will shrink to about 16 per cent.
Some targeted measures remain unaffected. Sector-specific duties, including the steel and aluminium tariffs imposed under Section 232, were not part of this litigation. The Commerce Department said it has broadened Section 232 coverage, raising duties as high as 50 per cent on more than 400 additional product categories.
Allies push back and outline next moves
Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to the president, dismissed the appeals court majority on Fox News as “politicians in black robes.” He framed the dissenting opinions as a possible path to reversal and said: “We feel very optimistic. If we lose the case, President Trump is right. It will be the end of the United States.”
Legal sources and reporting in The Wall Street Journal say the administration is preparing to broaden sector-specific tariffs, such as steel and aluminium, to blunt the impact of the court challenge.
Industry and legal perspectives
Law firms watching the case see Section 232 measures as harder to overturn. “Section 232 tariffs are central to President Trump’s tariff strategy. They aren’t the target of the pending litigation, and they’re more likely to survive a legal challenge and continue into the next presidential administration, which is what we saw with the aluminum and steel tariffs originally imposed under the first Trump administration,” Mike Lowell, a partner at Reed Smith, told CNBC.
Who brought the case and what happens next
The legal challenge was launched by Democratic-led states and a coalition of small import businesses. They argued that IEEPA does not authorise the kind of broad tariff scheme the administration adopted. The appeals court allowed the duties to remain in force while it stayed the ruling through 14 October, giving the administration time to seek Supreme Court review. If the high court declines to hear the case or upholds the appeals court, most of the reciprocal and blanket duties will be removed.
The tariffs and the legal fight have already altered global trade patterns. Some countries agreed to revised terms with Washington, including the UK, Japan and the EU. Others have faced steeper penalties. India, for example, has been hit with a 50 per cent duty, one of the highest levies, in part over continued imports of Russian oil. For now importers and manufacturers must plan around duties that remain in place while the courts consider the dispute.
(With inputs from TOI, ANI)
You may also like
Police and BJP workers clash in Ranchi over protest against derogatory against PM Modi
Keir Starmer's top comms chief leaves No10 after year in role
Shraddha: Why do people perform their shraddha before they die? Know the reason behind it, which will surprise you..
Freddie Mercury's 'secret daughter' makes bombshell death statement about star
Bihar SIR: Claims, objections can be filed beyond Sep 1 deadline, EC to SC
