A federal appeals court just dropped-kicked President Trump’s tariff plans, ruling them an overreach of executive power.
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision, striking down five executive orders. This isn’t just a legal slap; it’s a reminder that even bold MAGA moves can hit a constitutional wall.
The Daily Caller reported that the court’s ruling voids Trump’s attempt to use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to slap duties on imports.
Private companies and 12 states sued, arguing Congress alone holds the purse strings on trade taxes. The judges agreed, saying the IEEPA doesn’t give the president a blank check to play taxman.
Trump’s tariffs, rolled out in early 2025, came in two flavors: “Trafficking Tariffs” and “Reciprocal Tariffs.” The former targeted Mexico, Canada, and China, citing a border emergency tied to opioids and crime. The latter hit nearly all U.S. trading partners with a 10% baseline duty, with some countries facing up to 50%.
Trafficking Tariffs Spark Controversy
The “Trafficking Tariffs” were Trump’s response to a declared national emergency at the southern border.
He imposed 25% duties on most Mexican and Canadian goods and a 10% duty on Chinese imports, later bumped to 20%. Critics called it a stretch, using border issues to justify broad trade penalties.
The “Reciprocal Tariffs,” launched in April 2025, were even bolder, targeting nearly every trading partner. China faced a staggering 125% tariff rate before negotiations rolled it back. These moves aimed to level the trade playing field but ended up in court instead.
A federal court first blocked these tariffs in May 2025, ruling the IEEPA doesn’t cover reciprocal trade taxes. The appeals court doubled down, saying the law’s “regulate importation” clause doesn’t mean the president can impose taxes willy-nilly. This legal one-two punch leaves Trump’s trade agenda in tatters.
Trump’s April 2025 “Liberation Day” announcement paused most tariffs for 90 days, except those on China.
China’s retaliation had pushed tariffs to 100% before a temporary truce was struck. This tit-for-tat trade war shows how quickly global relations can sour when tariffs fly.
Mexico got a breather after a “very successful” call between Trump and President Claudia Sheinbaum. The call led to negotiations for a tariff deal, showing diplomacy can sometimes outpace courtroom drama. Still, the pause didn’t save the tariffs from judicial scrutiny.
India faced a doubled tariff of 50% after buying Russian oil, a move Trump saw as disloyalty. This hardline stance reflects MAGA’s push for economic nationalism, but it risks alienating allies. The court’s ruling may force a rethink of such aggressive tactics.
Legal and Political Fallout
The coalition of 12 states and private companies argued that Congress, not the White House, controls trade policy.
Their lawsuits exposed the tariffs’ shaky legal ground, and the courts agreed. This victory for checks and balances stings for those who see tariffs as a tool to protect American workers.
Trump’s team intended the tariffs to last indefinitely, adjustable only by the president. That kind of unchecked power raised red flags for judges, who saw it as executive overreach. The Constitution’s clear on this: Congress, not the Oval Office, sets the trade rules.
Trump vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court, signaling he’s not backing down. His base cheers this defiance, seeing it as a stand against globalist trade policies. Yet, the legal road ahead looks steep, and the courts may not bend to MAGA fervor.
The ruling throws a wrench into Trump’s economic strategy, which leaned heavily on tariffs to boost American industries.
Without IEEPA backing, future tariff plans will need Congressional approval—a tough sell in a divided Washington. This could force a pivot to more diplomatic trade deals.
With Trump eyeing a Supreme Court appeal, the tariff battle is far from over. But for now, the judiciary has clipped his wings, reminding everyone that even a president can’t rewrite the Constitution. It’s a setback for MAGA’s trade vision, but the fight for America-first policies will likely rage on.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Benjamin Clark
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://americandigest.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
