On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court struck down most of Trump’s tariffs, including a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners announced on April 2, 2025, dubbed “Liberation Day,” as well as specific tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada aimed at addressing drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
The judges, appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump, found that IEEPA does not grant the president “unbounded” tariff authority, as the Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate commerce. The court also rejected the administration’s claim that the U.S. trade deficit, ongoing for 49 years, constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat” justifying emergency powers. The ruling, prompted by lawsuits from small businesses and a coalition of states, led to a permanent injunction against the tariffs, though the Trump administration has filed an appeal, potentially escalating the case to the Supreme Court. Tariffs imposed under other laws, like Section 232 on steel and aluminum, remain unaffected.
The injunction against Trump’s global tariffs, including the 10% baseline tariff and targeted tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, prevents immediate disruptions to supply chains, potentially stabilizing prices for goods reliant on imports. This is significant for industries like manufacturing, retail, and agriculture, which faced higher costs. By blocking tariffs, the ruling may mitigate price increases for consumers, as tariffs often raise the cost of imported goods. Small businesses, which led the lawsuits, benefit by avoiding additional financial strain.
The decision could ease tensions with trading partners like Canada and Mexico, who faced tariffs tied to immigration and drug trafficking policies. However, ongoing uncertainty due to the administration’s appeal may keep diplomatic relations strained. The ruling reinforces Congress’s constitutional authority over commerce, limiting the president’s ability to unilaterally impose broad economic measures under IEEPA. This sets a precedent for future administrations, emphasizing judicial oversight of executive actions.
The Trump administration’s appeal could lead to a landmark Supreme Court case, potentially clarifying the scope of IEEPA and executive power in trade policy. A conservative-leaning Court may influence the outcome, either upholding or overturning the lower court’s decision. The ruling undermines Trump’s “America First” trade agenda, which aimed to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and address issues like fentanyl trafficking through tariffs. This could force the administration to seek alternative legislative or diplomatic strategies, requiring congressional approval, which is politically challenging given partisan divides.
Many Republicans and Trump’s base view tariffs as a tool to protect American industries, reduce reliance on foreign goods, and address issues like illegal immigration and drug smuggling. They argue the ruling weakens national sovereignty and economic leverage, with some on X calling it “judicial overreach” by “activist judges.” Democrats, some moderate Republicans, and business groups like National Retail Federation support the ruling, arguing that broad tariffs harm consumers, inflate prices, and risk trade wars.
They emphasize Congress’s role in trade policy and criticize Trump’s use of IEEPA as an overreach, with posts on X highlighting the economic burden on small businesses. Economists and policymakers favoring protectionism argue tariffs boost domestic manufacturing and address trade imbalances (e.g., the U.S. trade deficit was $971.12 billion in 2023). They see the ruling as a setback for revitalizing industries like steel and electronics.
Economists aligned with free-market principles argue tariffs distort markets, increase costs, and provoke retaliation (e.g., China’s 2018 tariffs on U.S. agriculture). They view the ruling as a win for global trade stability and consumer welfare. Posts on X reflect a polarized response. Pro-Trump users express frustration, with hashtags like #TariffTakedown trending, claiming the ruling undermines economic nationalism. Conversely, critics of the tariffs, including business owners, celebrate the decision, citing relief from cost pressures. Some users speculate on the Supreme Court’s potential role, with mixed predictions based on its conservative majority.
The ruling highlights tensions between executive power and constitutional checks, a recurring theme in Trump’s presidency. If the Supreme Court takes the case, its decision could reshape trade policy authority for decades. Meanwhile, the administration may pivot to narrower tariff measures under existing laws (e.g., Section 232) or pressure Congress for new legislation, though bipartisan support is uncertain given the 2024 election’s lingering partisan rift.
