US Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs, Questions Executive Authority
A federal court has blocked President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling that he overstepped his authority under the IEEPA. The US Court of International Trade determined that the tariffs were unlawful and criticized the White House’s justification for unilateral action. This ruling poses a significant challenge to Trump’s trade policy as the administration grapples with growing legal and international pressures.
In a significant setback for President Donald Trump, a federal court ruled to invalidate his ambitious “Liberation Day” tariffs on Wednesday, raising questions about his authority to implement unilateral tariff measures under emergency powers. The US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump exceeded his executive authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify a broad range of global tariffs that were introduced last month. The decision has effectively blocked one of the most extensive trade actions initiated by the Trump administration to date.
The ruling stands to undermine Trump’s economic strategy, which he frequently promotes as a means to fight “unfair trade practices” and revitalize domestic manufacturing through aggressive tariff policies that often come off as erratic. In response to the court’s ruling, the White House expressed outrage, calling this an instance of judicial overreach. A spokesperson stated, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” emphasizing Trump’s commitment to using executive power to restore American greatness.
This court decision follows lawsuits filed by several parties earlier in May. One included claims from VOS Selections, a wine importer, together with four other American businesses, asserting that tariffs have caused tangible harm to their operations. The other lawsuit, filed by 12 states led by Oregon, contended that the new levies would inflate the costs of essential goods for public entities.
During the hearings conducted in New York, government attorneys pushed a narrative that Trump’s tariff measures were vital for fostering international negotiations and that blocking them would significantly weaken the US’s position in global trade dynamics. Brett Shumate, representing the Justice Department, remarked, “An injunction would completely kneecap the president.” However, Judge Jane Restani countered this viewpoint, stating that “the court cannot for political reasons allow the president to do something he’s not allowed to do by statute.”
The Trump administration had cited the IEEPA as the basis for the tariffs, claiming that unfair trade practices posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security and the economy. While the White House maintained this stance in a statement post-ruling, citing foreign countries’ unfair treatment as a factor behind America’s trade deficits, the court disagreed. It claimed that the emergency statute does not authorize the President to impose tariffs without congressional approval, labeling this maneuver an exceptional and unlawful extension of executive power.
The recent ruling from the US Court of International Trade represents a critical obstacle for President Trump’s tariff agenda, which he has portrayed as essential for protecting American interests. Citing the limitations of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the court’s decision could reshape tariff negotiations and the power dynamics between the executive branch and Congress. While the administration contends it needs these tariffs to address trade imbalances, the legal framework suggests otherwise, indicating that future tariff actions may need to undergo more stringent scrutiny.
Original Source: indianexpress.com
