On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a ruling that blocks President Donald Trump’s administration from imposing broad tariffs on imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This decision challenges a central component of the administration’s trade policy, which has been a significant aspect of its economic strategy.
Earlier in the year, President Trump announced a series of tariffs, referred to as “Liberation Day” tariffs, targeting countries with which the United States has substantial trade deficits. The administration justified these tariffs by invoking the IEEPA, asserting that trade imbalances constituted a national emergency that threatened the nation’s industrial base and economic security. The tariffs were intended to encourage domestic manufacturing and reduce federal budget deficits.
The court’s three-judge panel—comprising Judges Timothy Reif (appointed by President Trump), Jane Restani (appointed by President Ronald Reagan), and Gary Katzman (appointed by President Barack Obama)—unanimously determined that the administration’s use of the IEEPA to impose these tariffs exceeded the authority granted by the statute. The judges stated that the IEEPA does not provide the president with the power to regulate importation through tariffs in the manner attempted.
While the ruling restricts the administration’s ability to unilaterally impose such tariffs under the IEEPA, it notes that the president retains the authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement temporary import taxes of up to 15% for 150 days on nations with significant trade deficits.
In response to the ruling, White House spokesperson Kush Desai emphasized the administration’s view that trade deficits pose a national emergency detrimental to American communities and workers. Desai stated that the administration remains committed to utilizing all available executive powers to address these issues and restore economic strength. The administration has filed a notice of appeal, indicating that the matter may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
This court decision represents a significant limitation on the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally implement trade policies through emergency powers. It underscores the role of the judiciary in interpreting the scope of presidential authority and may influence future administrations’ approaches to trade and economic policy.
