The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on goods from countries worldwide exceed presidential authority under existing emergency powers legislation..The three-judge panel invalidated both the administration's "Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs" affecting all trading partners and "Trafficking Tariffs" targeting China, Mexico, and Canada in cases brought by private companies and twelve States..The case involved two categories of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump in early 2025. The first, referred to as the 'Trafficking Tariffs', imposed duties on imports from Canada, Mexico and China citing national security concerns related to drug trafficking and transnational criminal activity. The second, termed the 'Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs', applied a general 10 percent duty on all imports and higher rates (up to 50 percent) on imports from 57 countries, justified on the basis of persistent trade imbalances.The President invoked International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the statutory basis for both the measures, declaring national emergencies under that law to authorize the imposition of tariffs..The Court examined whether the IEEPA of 1977 grants the President the authority to impose the challenged tariffs without congressional approval."The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to 'lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,'" the court stated. "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ('IEEPA') delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world."The Court concluded that IEEPA does not provide such broad delegation, determining that the tariffs lack sufficient limitations to comply with constitutional requirements for legislative delegation to the executive branch..The administration implemented its worldwide tariff program beginning in April 2025 through Executive Order 14257, establishing a 10 percent duty on imports from all countries, with rates up to 50 percent for 57 specific nations. The Court determined these measures exceeded IEEPA's grant of authority."We do not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and set aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the Court ruled.It distinguished the current tariffs from previous cases that upheld limited presidential trade actions, noting that earlier precedents involved temporary measures with specific constraints rather than open-ended tariff authority..The Court examined Congress's 1977 reforms to presidential emergency powers which followed concerns about executive overreach in international trade matters."Congress reformed the President's emergency powers... [and] enacted IEEPA to provide 'the President a new set of authorities for use in time of national emergency which are both more limited in scope than those of [TWEA] and subject to various procedural limitations,'" according to the ruling.The Court noted that Congress had previously established specific procedures for addressing trade deficits through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which includes a 15 percent cap on tariffs and 150-day time limits. The Court found that the administration's unlimited tariffs circumvented these existing statutory frameworks..The Court applied separate reasoning to invalidate tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada that the administration justified as responses to drug trafficking and border security concerns. The panel found these measures failed to meet IEEPA's requirement that emergency powers be used to "deal with" the stated threats..The administration argued that courts lack jurisdiction to review presidential determinations regarding national security threats but the court disagreed with this position."The duty of courts to decide such questions has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court," the judgment said. The Court ruled that while executive branch foreign policy decisions receive judicial deference, courts retain authority to determine whether such actions comply with statutory limitations imposed by Congress..The private plaintiffs—including MicroKits, FishUSA and Genova Pipe—were represented by the Liberty Justice Center and legal scholars including Ilya Somin. The State Plaintiffs were led by the State of Oregon and joined by Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont..The United States government was represented by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, along with attorneys from the Departments of Homeland Security and Commerce and the Office of the United States Trade Representative..Read Judgment
