XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats.d
XPost: alt.politics.economics

US court blocks Trump from imposing the bulk of his tariffs
By Ramishah Maruf and David Goldman, CNN
6 minute read
Updated 8:58 PM EDT, Wed May 28, 2025

New York CNN -- A federal court on Wednesday ruled that President
Donald Trump overstepped his authority to impose sweeping tariffs that
have raised the cost of imports for everyone from giant businesses to
everyday Americans.

But the administration immediately appealed the decision on Wednesday
night, leaving the situation uncertain for consumers and companies and potentially prolonging the battle over whether Trump's import duties
will stand - and possibly reshape the global economy.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, a
relatively low-profile court in Manhattan, stopped Trump's global
tariffs that he imposed citing emergency economic powers, including the "Liberation Day" tariffs he announced on April 2. It also prevents
Trump from enforcing his tariffs placed earlier this year against
China, Mexico and Canada, designed to combat fentanyl coming into the
United States.

The court ruled in favor of a permanent injunction, potentially
grinding Trump's global tariffs to a halt before "deals" with most
other trading partners have even been reached. The court ordered a
window of 10 calendar days for administrative orders "to effectuate the permanent injunction." That means the bulk - but not all - of Trump's
tariffs would be put in a standstill if the ruling holds up in appeal
and, potentially, with the Supreme Court.

The order halts Trump's 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some
goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on
most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect
the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were
subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act - a different law
than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.

Stock futures surged on the ruling. Dow futures rose nearly 500 points,
or 1.1%. The broader S&P 500 futures were up 1.4%, and Nasdaq futures
were 1.6% higher in afterhours trading.

The lawsuit was filed by the libertarian legal advocacy group Liberty
Justice Center in April and represented wine-seller VOS Selections and
four other small businesses that claimed they had been severely harmed
by the tariffs. The panel came to a unanimous decision, publishing an
opinion on the VOS suit and also one by twelve Democratic states
brought against the Trump tariffs.

"We won - the state of Oregon and state plaintiffs also won," Ilya
Somin, a law professor at Scalia Law School, George Mason University
and plaintiff lawyer, said to CNN immediately after the ruling. "The
opinion rules that entire system of liberation day and other IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) tariffs is illegal and
barred by permanent injunction."
Declaring a national economic emergency

On April 2, Trump announced his "reciprocal" tariffs, imposing
significant levies on imports from some of America's closest trading
allies - though he soon after implemented a 90-day pause on April 9. He
left in place "universal" 10% tariffs on most goods coming into the
United States.

Trump implemented these tariffs without Congress by invoking the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president
the authority to act in response to unusual and extraordinary threats.
But the law does not include any mention of tariffs as a potential
action the president can take once IEEPA is invoked.

Trump also cited IEEPA in his 20% tariffs on China and 25% tariffs on
many goods from Mexico and Canada designed to target fentanyl
trafficking into the United States.

But the Trump administration has not met that criteria for an
emergency, the plaintiffs alleged. The lawsuit also alleges IEEPA
doesn't give the president the power to enact tariffs in the first
place, and even if it was interpreted to, it "would be an
unconstitutional delegation of Congress's power to impose tariffs,"
according to a statement.

The court concurred in its ruling that Trump lacked the authority to
impose those tariffs even after declaring a national emergency.

"IEEPA does not authorize any of the worldwide, retaliatory, or
trafficking tariff orders," the panel of judges said in their order
Wednesday. "The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any
authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by
means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal
with the threats set forth in those orders."
'Surprising and spectacular' decision

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement that: "It is
not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the
Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to
address this crisis and restore American Greatness."

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller was
blunter, posting on X that "The judicial coup is out of control" in
response to the news.

Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson
Institute for International Economics, called it a "surprising and
spectacular decision."

"The reason it's a surprise is that if you look at past cases where
plaintiffs have tried to challenge the presidential use of
extraordinary authority under various laws, the plaintiffs have always
lost against the government," Hufbauer said in an interview with CNN.

"All the president had to do was say, 'national security,' or 'national emergency.' Those are magic words."

The decision could help small businesses across America, many of which
had been struggling with the jump in costs from tariffs.

"This is potentially - with that word choice underscored - a
significant policy pivot point should it hold up for both the economy
and the quiet majority inside Congress that does not support current
trade policy," Joe Brusuelas, RSM US chief economist, wrote in an email
to CNN Business. "In particular, this would provide a huge relief for
small and medium sized firms that neither have the margins nor the
financial depth to absorb the tariffs on a sustained basis."
Potentially headed to the Supreme Court

The Department of Justice lawyers argued that the tariffs are a
political question - meaning it's something that the courts can't
decide.

But the plaintiffs noted IEEPA makes no mention of tariffs.

"If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on
a law that doesn't even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional
usurpation of legislative power, I don't know what is," Somin said in
April.

Separately, and using similar arguments, twelve Democratic states sued
the administration in the same court for "illegally imposing" tax hikes
on Americans through the tariffs.

"We brought this case because the Constitution doesn't give any
president unchecked authority to upend the economy. This ruling
reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made
on the president's whim," Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in
a statement Wednesday.

The judges on the Manhattan panel were each appointed by a different
president. Judge Jane Restani was appointed to the US Court of
International Trade by President Ronald Reagan. Judge Gary Katzmann was appointed to the court by President Barack Obama. Judge Timothy Reif
was appointed by President Trump.

The immediate higher court is the federal circuit, though it could
potentially go right to the Supreme Court.

The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court in
Manhattan that handles disputes over customs and international trade
laws.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

CNN's Matt Egan, Rashard Rose, Mary Kay Mallonee and Alicia Wallace
contributed reporting.

@@@

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)