A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily halted a lower court’s decision that blocked former President Donald Trump’s expansive global tariff policy, granting the White House a reprieve as it challenges the ruling.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a brief order pausing a decision made just one day earlier by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which had ruled that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.
“The judgments and the permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in these cases are temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers,” the appellate court said in its ruling.
The appeals court has invited both the government and the plaintiffs — which include a group of American businesses and a coalition of states — to submit written arguments in early June before it determines whether to continue the pause or let the lower court’s decision take effect.
Legal Questions About Presidential Power
At the center of the legal battle is the IEEPA, a Cold War-era law granting the president emergency powers to respond to foreign threats. Traditionally, it has been used to impose sanctions or freeze foreign assets — not to create new tariffs. Trump’s legal team argues that the foreign economic threats posed by global drug trafficking, particularly the fentanyl trade, justify using the IEEPA to raise tariffs.
The Court of International Trade disagreed. In a rare and sweeping opinion, a three-judge panel ruled that Trump’s interpretation of the IEEPA stretched the law beyond its intent, finding that Congress never gave the executive branch unilateral authority to reshape trade policy through this statute.
This ruling posed a serious threat to a core part of Trump’s economic and national security agenda, which includes using tariffs to punish foreign nations he accuses of exploiting U.S. markets or undermining American security.
White House Pushback
The White House responded swiftly, characterizing the court’s decision as judicial overreach.
“Three judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade disagreed and brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement. “These judges failed to acknowledge that the president of the United States has core foreign affairs powers and authority given to him by Congress to protect the United States economy and national security.”
The administration argues that global economic disruption, particularly related to synthetic opioid trafficking and trade imbalances, constitutes a national emergency, justifying extraordinary measures.
Economic Fallout and Political Ramifications
Trump’s tariffs — branded “liberation day” tariffs — were enacted last month in a dramatic move targeting imports from dozens of countries. The former president framed the decision as an act of economic self-defense, particularly against countries like China, Mexico, and Canada, which he accuses of facilitating the fentanyl crisis.
But the economic consequences were swift. Markets fell sharply after the announcement, with Wall Street analysts warning that the tariffs could drive up prices, slow growth, and destabilize supply chains. Following widespread criticism from the business community and negative economic forecasts, Trump paused most of the tariffs for 90 days to allow for trade negotiations.
Despite the pause, tensions with China flared. In a retaliatory move, China imposed new tariffs on U.S. goods, prompting a tit-for-tat exchange that saw U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports rise to 145% before both sides agreed to de-escalate. Under the temporary deal struck earlier this month, the U.S. now imposes a 30% tariff on Chinese goods, while China has set a 10% tariff on American products.
What’s Next
While the federal appeals court’s stay gives the Trump administration a legal lifeline, the broader questions surrounding presidential authority over trade remain unresolved. A separate federal judge in Washington, D.C., also ruled Thursday to block specific tariffs affecting two Illinois-based companies — but delayed implementation for 14 days to allow for an appeal.
The outcome of the appeals process could have long-term implications not only for Trump’s policy agenda but also for the limits of presidential power in economic matters.
Legal scholars say the case may ultimately land before the U.S. Supreme Court, which would be tasked with answering whether a president can reshape global trade through emergency powers that were originally designed for more narrowly defined threats.
