Second Federal Court Rules Against Trump’s Use Of Tariffs

A second federal court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of emergency tariffs, intensifying the legal and political battle over one of his administration’s signature economic policies.

The first ruling came Wednesday, when the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, ruling that Trump overstepped his authority by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify broad-based import tariffs under his so-called “Liberation Day” trade policy. The court concluded the executive orders authorizing those tariffs were contrary to law and exceeded the president’s authority to regulate imports.

The panel held that Trump’s declaration of a national economic emergency failed to meet the statutory threshold under the law, noting that long-standing trade imbalances and foreign manufacturing reliance did not constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The imposition of tariffs under that rationale, the court said, amounted to an improper exercise of legislative power by the executive branch, raising concerns under the nondelegation doctrine, which restricts Congress from handing its legislative authority to the executive or its agencies. (RELATED: The Judicial Decision That’s Giving China A Pass)

The court also invoked the major questions doctrine, finding that national economic policy decisions of such magnitude require a clear grant of authority from Congress — something the court said was lacking in Trump’s use of IEEPA.

A second legal blow followed Thursday afternoon, when U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction preventing the government from collecting tariffs from two educational toy companies. Contreras ruled that Trump lacked authority under IEEPA to impose the duties, echoing the reasoning of the Court of International Trade.

As the New York Post reports:

“The International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs set forth,” Contreras wrote, adding that the statute “doesn’t encompass the power to impose the sort of sweeping levies used by Trump.”

He noted that “in the five decades since IEEPA was enacted, no President until now has ever invoked the statute…to impose tariffs.”

The decision, which aligns with a separate ruling issued Wednesday by the US Court of International Trade in New York, delivers another blow to Trump’s second-term trade agenda.

A three-judge panel from that court similarly concluded that the president’s use of IEEPA to justify broad “reciprocal tariffs” was impermissible.

In response, the Trump administration filed emergency motions to stay both rulings and signaled plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, possibly as soon as Friday. Officials argued the decisions jeopardize national security and economic stability. Supporters called the rulings judicial overreach and defended the president’s ability to act on trade matters under foreign affairs powers delegated by Congress.

The court decisions have introduced new uncertainty into the future of Trump’s tariff strategy and its broader impact on international trade. The administration’s efforts to reshape trade policy through executive action now face heightened judicial scrutiny, raising important questions about the separation of powers in economic policymaking.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

READ NEXT: Judge Intervenes In Trump Admin’s Latest Harvard Order