The U.S. Court of Appeals has handed President Trump a temporary win in a heated legal battle over his sweeping tariffs.
For now, his America-first trade strategy lives to fight another day.
But just 24 hours earlier, a federal court in New York had tried to slam the brakes on Trump’s new tariffs.
That court — the U.S. Court of International Trade — ruled that Trump went too far, calling his use of emergency powers to impose a wide range of tariffs “illegal.”
The court said the law he used — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — was never meant to give presidents a blank check to rewrite trade rules.
But the appeals court stepped in. Their temporary stay means Trump’s tariffs stay in place — at least until June 9, when both sides will file new legal arguments.
What Are These Tariffs?
Back in April, Trump rolled out what he called the “Liberation Day” tariff plan. It slapped:
-
A 10% import tax on almost all goods from U.S. trading partners
-
A 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods
-
A 20% tariff on Chinese products
Trump justified it by pointing to a “national emergency,” arguing that America’s trade deficit and the fentanyl crisis made it necessary to act fast and strong.
This isn’t the first time he’s used tariffs like a hammer.
During his first term, he hit steel and aluminum imports to protect U.S. jobs.
Now, he’s going bigger — aiming to pressure over 60 countries into fairer trade deals.
So What’s the Problem?
A group of businesses sued.
They said these tariffs were hurting them — driving up prices, wrecking supply chains, and making it harder to compete.
The federal court in New York agreed.
Its three-judge panel — which included appointees from Reagan, Obama, and Trump himself — said the president overstepped.
They reminded everyone that the Constitution gives Congress, not the White House, the power to handle trade and taxes.
The judges said Trump’s emergency claim didn’t meet the legal standard of an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
In plain English: a trade deficit or drug smuggling isn’t the kind of crisis this law was meant to address.
Trump’s Team Fights Back
Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt called the ruling a case of “activist judges” trying to kneecap a sitting president.
Another official, Kush Desai, said the court’s move would “cripple” U.S. leverage in trade talks and threaten national security.
Trump himself took to Truth Social, calling it “the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation.”
Their argument? These tariffs are about keeping America safe and getting better trade deals, and they’re willing to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.
What’s at Stake?
If the original court ruling had stood, the average U.S. tariff rate would’ve dropped to around 6% — basically cutting Trump’s strategy off at the knees. Instead, the stay keeps it at about 15% for now, according to Oxford Research.
That’s a big deal.
Trump uses tariffs like poker chips — offering to pause or remove them if other countries come to the table.
Without them, he loses his hand.
Sure, critics say these taxes raise prices for everyday Americans.
They argue small businesses are getting crushed. Groups like the Liberty Justice Center say the tariffs are doing “irreparable harm.”
But Trump and his backers see things differently.
They believe short-term pain is worth long-term gains — like more American manufacturing, better deals, and fewer Chinese goods flooding our shelves.
What’s Next?
This fight isn’t over.
June 9 is the next key date. Both sides will lay out their cases again, and the appeals court will decide whether to let the tariffs stay during a longer review.
If they don’t, the White House is likely to appeal straight to the Supreme Court.
Trump could also shift gears and use another law — like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act — which gives the president more wiggle room when claiming “national security” threats.
Why This Matters
This case could redefine how much power a president has to protect American jobs and security through trade policy.
Trump’s push for fairer trade has always rubbed some folks the wrong way — especially in D.C. courtrooms, but for a lot of everyday Americans it makes sense: if other countries are taxing our goods, why shouldn’t we do the same?
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
