US. federal court deals blow to Trump’s tariff agenda

stops Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs

A U.S. federal court, on Thursday, May 29, 2025, ruled that former President Donald Trump’s extensive use of tariffs was illegal, marking a significant development that could undermine the foundation of his controversial trade policy.

The Guardian repots that the decision followed a series of lawsuits challenging Trump’s authority to impose such tariffs without congressional approval.

The decision was made by a three-judge panel from the New York-based Court of International Trade,

The court agreed that Trump had overstepped his legal powers, making U.S. trade policy overly reliant on presidential discretion and causing global economic instability.

Typically, tariffs require congressional approval.

However, Trump bypassed this process by citing the country’s trade deficits as a national emergency, allowing him to levy tariffs broadly.

This bold action, which occurred the previous month, rattled global financial markets.

In their ruling, the judges stated clearly that Trump’s tariff actions “exceed any authority granted to the president … to regulate importation by means of tariffs.”

Importantly, the court emphasized that its decision was not based on the policy’s effectiveness or strategic merit.

Instead, it focused on legality.

The judges concluded that the federal law does not permit such broad use of tariffs under emergency powers, regardless of their potential utility or success.

The court explained the tariffs were “impermissible not because [they are] unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”

Following the ruling, financial markets reacted positively.

The U.S. dollar surged against other major currencies like the euro, yen, and Swiss franc.

Asian stock markets also rose, and U.S. futures indicated gains on Wall Street.

The Trump administration intends to appeal the decision.

White House officials criticized the court’s authority, arguing that elected officials, not judges, should determine how to manage national emergencies.

“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai.

If upheld, the ruling would strike a major blow to Trump’s trade strategy.

Central to his economic agenda, these tariffs were intended to force trade concessions, boost U.S. manufacturing, and reduce the $1.2 trillion trade deficit.

Without the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as justification, the administration would have had to follow a slower legal process.

A process that involves detailed trade investigations and compliance with other trade laws before applying tariffs.

Any appeal will proceed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, it’s worth noting that the current ruling did not address certain industry-specific tariffs.

These industry-specific tariffs includes those on automobiles, steel, and aluminum, which were imposed using different legal provisions and will remain in effect for now.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, strongly criticized the decision, calling it evidence of an out-of-control “judicial coup.”

Meanwhile, Trump remained silent on the ruling itself, choosing instead to post about another legal matter involving the Pulitzer Prize board on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The court’s decision came in response to two separate lawsuits.

One was filed by small businesses, including VOS Selections, a wine importer that claimed the tariffs had severely impacted its operations.

The other was brought by a coalition of twelve states, led by Oregon.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield praised the ruling, saying it reaffirmed that trade policy decisions cannot be made arbitrarily by the president.

Plaintiffs argued that the IEEPA does not authorize the use of tariffs.

It also argued that a trade deficit does not constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat” as required by law.

The U.S. has operated with a trade deficit for 49 consecutive years, undermining the claim that it represents a true emergency.

Trump’s tariffs targeted countries including Canada, China, and Mexico, and were also linked to efforts to curb illegal immigration and stop the inflow of synthetic opioids.

His administration referenced a 1971 case involving President Richard Nixon’s use of emergency tariffs.

It argued that determining the legitimacy of such emergencies should be a congressional, not judicial, responsibility.

Trump’s sweeping tariffs initially roiled global financial markets and prompted many economists to lower forecasts for U.S. economic growth.

However, the broader impact of these tariffs on everyday consumers in the U.S. has yet to fully materialize.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook