A United States trade court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump’s across-the-board tariff orders, ruling that the administration had exceeded its legal authority by imposing sweeping import duties without congressional approval.
In a decision poised to significantly reshape the future of US trade policy, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his blanket tariff regime was “impermissible” under federal law.
The court issued a permanent injunction against the tariffs, declaring that the US Constitution grants exclusive authority to Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations — an authority that, the court asserted, cannot be overridden by presidential emergency powers.
“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” the panel noted. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”
The judges directed the Trump administration to issue revised orders reflecting the ruling within 10 days. Shortly after the decision, the administration filed a notice of appeal, questioning the court’s jurisdiction.
The court’s ruling effectively invalidates all tariff orders issued by the former president since January under IEEPA, a law typically invoked during national emergencies to address threats posed by foreign entities. However, the ruling does not impact industry-specific tariffs, such as those on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, which were imposed under separate legal authorities.
Broad Implications
The Court of International Trade — which is based in Manhattan and hears cases related to customs and trade — stated that the plaintiffs, including small businesses and a coalition of 12 US states, had successfully demonstrated that the tariffs caused them direct economic harm.
The ruling came in response to two consolidated lawsuits: one filed by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US importers, and another by several states led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.
“This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Rayfield said in a statement, calling the tariffs “unlawful, reckless and economically devastating.”
The plaintiffs, ranging from a New York-based wine importer to a Virginia maker of educational kits, said the tariffs had severely impacted their operations by driving up costs and disrupting supply chains.
“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” the court noted.
Market Reaction and Political Fallout
The ruling was met with a positive reaction from financial markets, with the US dollar rallying against major currencies and equity markets gaining across Asia and on Wall Street. Analysts indicated that the decision introduces a degree of certainty into global trade dynamics, which had been unsettled by Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs as a policy tool.
A White House spokesperson defended the tariffs, stating that the US trade deficit posed a “national emergency” that had “decimated American communities” and weakened the country’s industrial base.
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the administration at the time.
Trump had frequently cited the growing US trade deficit — which stood at $1.2 trillion in goods — as justification for imposing tariffs of 10% to over 50% on a range of imports. The former president argued that the levies would incentivize domestic manufacturing and bring jobs back to the US.
However, businesses and analysts contend that the tariffs led to increased costs for American companies, supply chain chaos, and retaliatory measures from trading partners. Multiple trade negotiations, including with the European Union and China, were affected by the tariff-first approach.
While some tariffs were paused or modified in May 2025 amid trade talks, the broader legal framework used to justify them has now been rejected by the judiciary.
Trump Administration Pursues Appeal
The Trump administration has pursued the matter in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. Legal experts believe the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, given its constitutional implications.
The Department of Justice argued during the trial that the lawsuits should be dismissed, asserting that plaintiffs had not yet paid the tariffs in question and that only Congress could challenge a national emergency declaration.
Trump’s administration remains the first in US history to use IEEPA to impose tariffs rather than freeze assets or sanction foreign actors, as the law was originally designed to do.
At least five other lawsuits against the tariffs remain pending in US courts.
