Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs, Citing Constitutional Overreach

by Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Staff

(Worthy News) – In a major blow to former President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump exceeded his constitutional authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, Canada, and dozens of other nations under what he dubbed “Liberation Day” tariffs.

A unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the tariffs–invoked under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)–violate both the Constitution’s separation of powers and statutory limits placed by Congress on presidential authority.

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA,” the court wrote. “Any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.”

The ruling, which consolidates two challenges–V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and State of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security–permanently blocks the tariffs and vacates their legal standing.

Court Rejects Broad Use of Emergency Powers

Trump had argued that the tariffs were justified under emergency powers due to nonreciprocal trade practices and concerns about drug trafficking. However, the judges — Gary Katzmann (an Obama appointee), Timothy Reif (a Trump appointee), and Jane A. Restani (a Reagan appointee) — found that the rationale failed to meet the statutory standards and lacked a sufficient nexus to the described threats.

Citing both the nondelegation and central questions doctrines, the court concluded that such sweeping tariff authority must remain with Congress.

“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law,” said Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, which filed one of the suits. “It protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs.”

Tariff Policy in Turmoil

Trump’s use of tariffs was a signature part of his “America First” economic strategy. Rates on Chinese goods were briefly raised as high as 125% before being scaled back to 10%. Meanwhile, “trafficking tariffs” on Mexican and Canadian imports remained at 25% and 20%, respectively.

Despite the ruling, many of these tariffs technically remain in effect pending appeal. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal immediately after the decision was handed down.

A White House spokesman defended the tariffs as a necessary response to decades of “nonreciprocal treatment” and persistent trade deficits. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities,” said spokesman Kush Desai. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.”

States and Businesses Applaud Decision

Democratic-led states, including Arizona, joined in the legal challenge. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes praised the decision as a victory for constitutional governance. “The president does not have the authority to implement tariffs unilaterally,” she said.

Economists and business leaders have long warned that sudden, across-the-board tariffs could disrupt supply chains and raise prices on consumer goods.

The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing tension between executive authority and congressional power, particularly when national emergencies are cited as a legal foundation for sweeping economic policy.

Whether the ruling will ultimately hold on appeal may shape the next administration’s trade and foreign policy for years to come.

Latest Worthy News