NNH International Desk
WASHINGTON — In a fractured ruling that could redefine the scope of presidential emergency powers, a federal appeals court declared that most of former President Donald Trump’s tariffs were unconstitutional. But in a twist, the tariffs remain in place for now—leaving businesses, consumers, and politicians bracing for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The 7–4 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit turned less on politics than on philosophy. Judges appointed by presidents from both parties joined together in the majority, insisting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the right to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs.
“The statute neither mentions tariffs nor has safeguards that allow the president to wield that kind of power,” the court wrote in a passage that captured the majority’s skepticism.
The Coalition Against Trump’s Tariffs
Among the seven judges in the majority was Alan Lourie, a George H. W. Bush appointee and veteran of the court’s patent docket. His vote underscored that the ruling was not strictly partisan. Joining him were six Democratic appointees—two from President Biden, four from President Obama—who collectively pressed a narrow reading of IEEPA. Their conclusion: Congress may have given the president a wide toolbox for emergencies, but tariffs were never one of the tools inside.
The Four Who Disagreed
The dissent, penned by Judge Richard Taranto, an Obama appointee, argued that tariffs fall naturally under the power to “regulate importation.” He was joined by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and Judge Sharon Prost, both appointed by George W. Bush, as well as Judge Raymond Chen, another Obama appointee. This coalition warned the court was weakening the presidency. “Congress granted broad discretion to the executive in times of extraordinary threat,” the dissent said.
Not About Party, But Power
The unusual lineup—Republicans and Democrats on both sides—revealed how the case cuts across traditional political boundaries. Instead, it highlights a deeper tension in American governance: Who decides the limits of presidential power when Congress is vague? Legal scholars note the decision echoes recent Supreme Court battles over executive overreach, from environmental regulations to pandemic mandates.
Trump’s Response and What Comes Next
Trump, unsurprisingly, denounced the ruling as “highly partisan” on his Truth Social platform, claiming the decision, if upheld, would “literally destroy the United States of America.” The Supreme Court is now poised to decide whether the president can invoke a trade emergency to impose tariffs without explicit approval from Congress. With six Republican-appointed justices and three Democratic-appointed justices, the outcome is anything but certain.
The justices have sometimes embraced muscular executive authority in national security—but they have also clipped presidents when statutory language is stretched too far. The decision, expected next year, will not just settle the fate of Trump’s tariffs. It may draw a new boundary line for American presidents who seek to act first and justify later.
