• A federal appeals court has struck down the bulk of President Trump’s sweeping tariff program, ruling he exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
  • The tariffs remain in effect under a stay until at least October, creating immediate uncertainty for importers and global trade partners.
  • President Trump has vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, warning that a final loss of this executive power would lead the country into unprecedented poverty.

A federal appeals court has delivered a seismic blow to the Trump administration’s trade agenda, ruling that the president overstepped his legal authority by imposing broad-based tariffs under a declared national emergency. The decision, which specifically targets tariffs enacted in April 2025 and earlier levies on nations including China, Canada, and Mexico, asserts that the power to levy tariffs remains a “core Congressional power” that cannot be circumvented through the IEEPA.

Despite the ruling, a judicial stay means the complex web of duties—which include baseline 10% tariffs and rates as high as 50% for countries with trade deficits—remains in force through October. This temporary reprieve sets the stage for a high-stakes appeal to the Supreme Court. “Without a deal, the company would be forced into bankruptcy,” is how one trade lawyer described the precarious position of importers who have built supply chains around the current policy but now face potential refund claims and retroactive adjustments.

President Trump responded to the legal setback with characteristic vigor. In a statement, he warned that the nation could become “unbelievably poor again” if the executive branch loses the authority to enact tariffs unilaterally. He has pledged to take the case to the highest court, framing the issue as fundamental to national economic security. The administration’s legal team is expected to argue that the judiciary is improperly constraining a president’s ability to respond to economic threats declared as national emergencies.

The legal uncertainty is already rippling through markets and corporate boardrooms. Companies that had successfully petitioned for exemptions, such as those based in the UK, Japan, and the EU, are watching closely, while those importing from nations facing the highest tariffs, like Laos and Algeria, are recalculating costs. Efforts to reach the White House press office for additional comment were not immediately successful.

The court’s decision underscores a significant tension in U.S. trade policy, reasserting Congress’s constitutional role in setting tariffs. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s opinion, it would represent a dramatic curtailment of presidential power in trade matters, likely forcing the administration to rely on more traditional, and often slower, tools like Commerce Department investigations under statutes such as Section 232. For now, the only certainty is more uncertainty, as the nation awaits the next move from the Supreme Court.