Executive Summary
- A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Trump’s tariffs were imposed unlawfully, upholding an earlier decision.
- The court determined that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally set tariff rates without congressional approval was unlawful.
- New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led a lawsuit with 11 other state prosecutors, hailed the decision as a significant victory for American families and businesses.
The Story So Far
- The federal appeals court’s ruling stems from a lawsuit initiated by several state attorneys general, including New York’s Letitia James, who challenged President Trump’s tariff program. They argued that Trump unlawfully imposed these tariffs, which they considered unapproved “massive taxes” on Americans, by unilaterally declaring an “economic emergency” under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) without congressional approval, thus overstepping his statutory authority.
Why This Matters
- The federal appeals court’s ruling, which found President Trump’s tariffs were unlawfully imposed, significantly curtails the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally levy tariffs using emergency powers, thereby complicating future trade policy ambitions and reinforcing the necessity for congressional oversight and adherence to established legal frameworks in economic matters.
Who Thinks What?
- The federal appeals court ruled that President Trump’s method of imposing tariffs using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare an “economic emergency” and unilaterally set tariff rates without congressional approval was unlawful.
- New York Attorney General Letitia James and 11 other state prosecutors argued that Trump lacked the statutory authority to impose these tariffs, which they described as massive, unapproved taxes on Americans, hailing the court’s decision as a victory for families and businesses.
- The Trump administration, through White House spokesperson Kush Desai, characterized the legal action as a “witch hunt against President Trump” and maintained that the tariffs were a legitimate exercise of presidential authority to address economic imbalances.
A federal appeals court has ruled that most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs were imposed unlawfully, a decision New York Attorney General Letitia James hailed as a significant victory for American families and businesses. The ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by the Court of International Trade, complicates Trump’s future trade policy ambitions.
Court’s Decision on Tariff Authority
The federal appeals court determined on Friday that while tariffs themselves are not outlawed, Trump’s method of implementation violated the law. The court found that using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare an “economic emergency” and unilaterally set tariff rates without congressional approval was unlawful.
Attorney General James, a Democrat, expressed her satisfaction with the outcome on X, stating, “A court ruled in our favor and declared that President Trump cannot impose tariffs whenever, wherever, or however he wants.” She emphasized the ruling as a win for New York’s hardworking families and businesses, vowing to continue fighting to protect consumers.
Background of the Legal Challenge
James was among 12 state prosecutors who initiated a lawsuit against Trump over his tariff program. In court papers filed in April, the attorneys general from New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont argued that Trump lacked the statutory authority to impose the tariffs.
They contended that these tariffs functioned as massive taxes on Americans, which had not received congressional approval. The legal challenge aimed to prevent what they described as an illegal imposition of economic burdens on the populace.
Administration’s Response
At the time the lawsuit was filed, White House spokesperson Kush Desai characterized the legal action as a “witch hunt against President Trump.” The administration maintained that the tariffs were a legitimate exercise of presidential authority aimed at addressing economic imbalances.
The federal appeals court’s decision marks a notable legal setback for President Trump’s approach to trade policy, specifically regarding the unilateral imposition of tariffs. The ruling reinforces the principle that presidential authority in economic emergencies, when used to levy tariffs, requires adherence to established legal frameworks and potentially congressional oversight, as highlighted by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
