Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Appeals court strikes down many Trump tariffs, but delays enforcement
until October
By Devan Cole, Katelyn Polantz, Ramishah Maruf, Elisabeth Buchwald, CNN
Updated:
7:55 PM EDT, Fri August 29, 2025
Source: CNN
A federal appeals court Friday struck down many of President Donald
Trump’s historic tariffs, saying he unlawfully leaned on emergency
powers to impose the import taxes.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize
tariffs like the ones Trump used the law for earlier this year, the
Federal Circuit said in an unsigned opinion upholding a lower-court
ruling against Trump’s tariffs.
The judges noted that Trump’s unprecedented tariffs are an overstep
of his power because the ability to impose taxes, including tariffs, is
“a core Congressional power” that the Constitution grants to the
legislative branch.
The tariffs remain in place for now, after the court delayed
implementation of its order until October. That gives the Trump
administration time to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
“All tariffs are still in effect!” Trump posted late Friday on
social media. “If these tariffs ever went away, it would a total
disaster for our country.”
Trump has used his sweeping tariffs , but alliances with friendly
nations and relationships with adversaries. The levies are a
cornerstone of his economic plan. If some of the powers he’s claimed
to set those tariffs are ultimately permanently blocked, the
administration would need to find other levers to accomplish some of
Trump’s ambitious goals.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that tariff negotiations with
America’s trading partners would likely be “wrapped up” by Labor
Day. However, that deadline seems improbable, given that foreign
leaders currently reviewing their trade terms with the United States
may now require additional clarity on the legal application of
Trump’s tariffs.
In a statement submitted to the court on Friday, Bessent warned that
suspending the administration’s tariffs would “lead to dangerous
diplomatic embarrassment,” interrupt ongoing negotiations and pose
risks of retaliation from other countries.
Similarly, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote that a ruling
against Trump’s tariffs would cause “irreparable harm” to the US
and risk “unwinding” trade deals that Trump has already announced
— such as frameworks with the European Union, United Kingdom and
Japan.
But an attorney for the plaintiffs said the decision showed a key limit
around Trump’s presidential powers, even as Trump himself has argued
that his powers are vast and unmatched in US government.
“It’s a win for the American Constitution, that our founders
basically said that decisions that are major over things like taxation
have to be done by the Congress, not by the president and the stroke of
his pen,” attorney Neal Kaytal, who argued for the plaintiffs, told
CNN’s Jake Tapper on Friday. “I think the court overwhelmingly
today, in a 7-4 decision, rejected President Trump’s notion that he
can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.”
In a statement on Friday, the White House defended the president’s
powers to impose import taxes using the economic emergency law.
“President Trump lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him
by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign
threats,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in the statement.
“The President’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to
ultimate victory on this matter.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi said on social media that the administration
will appeal.
But Katyal said on a call with reporters that, should that appeal
happen, “we’ll be ready and willing to present our arguments to the
Supreme Court about why this is such an illegal and dangerous
usurpation of congressional authority.”
Back to a lower court
The court ruled that Congress, in passing the IEEPA, did not give the
president “wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of
the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs.”
“Notably, when drafting IEEPA, Congress did not use the term
‘tariff’ or any of its synonyms, like ‘duty’ or ‘tax,’”
the court said in its majority ruling. “The absence of any such
tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has
affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that
power.”
The majority concluded that Trump’s effort to roll out sweeping
tariffs like the ones at issue in the case are of such great
“magnitude” that he must have explicit congressional authorization
if he wants to impose them lawfully.
“We discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs
of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs,”
they wrote.
The dissenting judges said in a lengthy opinion penned by Judge Richard
Taranto that they think the emergency powers Trump invoked do give him
some authority to impose tariffs.
“IEEPA’s language, as confirmed by its history, authorizes tariffs
to regulate importation,” Taranto wrote in part.
The case was heard by the full bench of the Federal Circuit. Seven of
its judges ruled against Trump, while four dissented from the court’s
decision.
Though the majority ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when he
used the emergency law to impose the tariffs, it declined to block them
outright. Instead, it sent a pair of challenges to the levies back to
the lower court to take another look at whether it went too far when it
blocked the tariffs on a nationwide basis.
‘Liberation Day’ on hold
A federal court ruled in May that under the IEEPA to impose sweeping
tariffs. The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision,
setting the course for a legal battle over the economic policy that
Trump promises will re-focus the American economy on manufacturing, but
could raise prices for small businesses and consumers.
A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade blocked all
tariffs invoked under IEEPA, Trump announced on April 2, and the
tariffs placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada that
were designed to combat fentanyl coming into the United States.
Notably, the order did not include the 25% tariffs on autos, auto
parts, steel or aluminum, which were under a different law, Section 232
of the Trade Expansion Act.
The panel unanimously came to a summary judgment on two separate cases
in one opinion. One was a in April by the Liberty Justice Center, a
libertarian legal advocacy group representing wine-seller VOS
Selections and four other small businesses. The other was filed by 12
Democratic states against the government over tariffs.
The appeals court consolidated those two cases.
This story has been updated with additional context and developments.
<- back to index
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.