A Major Legal Blow to Trump-Era Trade Policy
On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a 7–4 decision that strikes at the foundation of Trump’s global tariff program. The court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president sweeping authority to impose tariffs without Congress.
The decision underscores the Constitution’s clear assignment of taxing and trade powers to the legislative branch. Yet for now, the tariffs remain. The court stayed its ruling until October 14, giving the Biden administration—or a possible Trump-led return—to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court Cites Limits on Executive Power
The ruling builds directly on V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, decided earlier this year by the Court of International Trade. That case rejected the idea that vague emergencies such as fentanyl trafficking or trade deficits could justify blanket tariffs under IEEPA.
The Federal Circuit went further. It invoked two powerful constitutional doctrines—the nondelegation principle and the major questions doctrine. The judges concluded that tariff-setting authority cannot be handed to the executive without strict statutory limits. Since IEEPA contains no such constraints, Trump’s sweeping trade measures were deemed unconstitutional.
Economic Shockwaves: Winners and Losers
The tariffs—dubbed “Liberation Day” duties by their supporters—covered imports from more than 60 nations. Most goods carried a 10 percent surcharge, while certain countries faced much harsher penalties: China up to 145 percent, Mexico 25 percent, and Canada 35 percent.
Trump argued these measures shielded American jobs and revived domestic industry. Critics countered that they drove up consumer prices, rattled supply chains, and placed an undue burden on small businesses. State governments joined companies in suing the federal government, saying the tariffs had no clear justification and lacked congressional oversight.
The decision marks one of the strongest judicial rebukes of presidential trade powers in decades. Advocates of the ruling hail it as a long overdue reaffirmation of Congress’s constitutional role in setting economic policy.
Trump’s Response and the Legal Road Ahead
Trump denounced the ruling as “highly partisan” and vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court. He defended the tariffs as essential to protecting American workers and manufacturers from what he called “foreign economic aggression.”
The administration now faces an October deadline to appeal. Many legal experts expect the Supreme Court to weigh in, potentially issuing a decision on presidential power with echoes of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the landmark 1952 ruling that limited executive authority during wartime.
What Comes Next: Key Scenarios
-
Supreme Court Review Likely: A hearing could redefine presidential power in foreign trade and economic emergencies.
-
Tariffs Temporarily Remain: The duties stay in place until October 14. If ultimately struck down, refunds to affected businesses could follow.
-
Future Administrations Constrained: Should the ruling stand, presidents will face new barriers to using emergency powers as a shortcut for trade policy.
-
Trade Policy in Flux: The case unfolds against a backdrop of U.S. disengagement from World Trade Organization enforcement, signaling a broader political struggle over protectionism and unilateral executive action.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for Presidential Power
This case is more than a legal skirmish over tariffs. It represents a constitutional turning point in the tug-of-war between Congress and the White House. For businesses and trading partners, the near term is clouded with uncertainty. Yet the long term may bring a return to trade policy rooted in transparency, statutory authority, and congressional debate.
The next few months will determine whether this ruling fades quietly into history—or reshapes the balance of power at the highest levels of government.