In the United States, a new jurisdictional conflict has emerged that could significantly impact the country’s future trade policy
The Federal Court for International Trade issued a landmark decision calling into question the legality of customs tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. The panel unanimously recognized that the tariffs enacted under his initiative exceeded the president’s constitutional powers, violating U.S. legal norms. According to the court, Trump’s decision to apply extensive tariffs on imports from several countries cannot be justified under current legislation. In its ruling, the judges emphasized that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the former president relied on, to legitimize customs duties is unlawful. They reminded that, according to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the authority to impose tariffs and set economic policy in this sphere. Consequently, Trump’s actions — which included implementing a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, a 20% tariff on imports from China, and 10% duties on products from dozens of other countries as part of efforts to reduce the trade deficit — were deemed illegal and are to be rescinded. Moreover, the court invalidated the so-called "reciprocal" tariffs ranging from 20% to 50%, which were supposed to come into effect on July 9 if U.S. partner countries did not reach agreements with the Trump administration within the specified timeframe. This ruling effectively strips the White House of the ability to use tariffs to breach legal boundaries and limits its capacity to introduce trade measures without proper legislative approval. Expressing his stance, Oregon Attorney General Bryan Farr, one of the 12 prosecutors who filed the lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs, stated: “We filed this case because the Constitution does not grant any president unlimited authority to undermine the country’s economy. This decision affirms the importance of law and demonstrates that trade-related decisions must be made responsibly and within legal frameworks, not behind political closed doors.” The White House responded by outright condemning the court’s verdict and immediately announced plans to appeal. Trump’s spokesperson said that “President Trump promised to prioritize the interests of the country and the American people, which is why the administration is using all available executive tools to address the crisis and restore U.S. leadership in the global economy.” Just minutes after the ruling was announced, a statement was issued indicating an intention to appeal, which could significantly delay the legal process and alter the country’s future trade policy prospects. This decision sets an important precedent, illustrating the limited powers of the president in the realm of international trade and highlighting the mechanisms Congress has to oversee U.S. foreign economic policy. One key question remains open — whether the Trump administration will change its approach to tariff policy and how this will affect relations with trading partners worldwide. In any case, this judicial ruling underscores the ongoing complex balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative system in the world’s most powerful country, with potential long-term consequences for the U.S. economy and international trade.