Raising alarming questions about judicial overreach, activist judges have struck down President Donald Trump’s America First tariffs.
The president’s measures have been designed to protect American workers and businesses from unfair global trade practices.
Still, the U.S. Court of International Trade, including an Obama appointee, blocked the reciprocal tariffs that were imposed to correct persistent trade imbalances harming the economy.
The federal court ruled that President Trump’s tariffs, which ranged from 11% to 84% on imports worldwide, exceeded his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The three-judge panel of judges appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump claimed the tariffs were unauthorized because they addressed trade imbalances rather than true emergencies.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai strongly defended the president’s actions, highlighting the real emergency facing American workers.
“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” Desai stated.
He added 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,” Kush continued.
The court’s decision represents a direct challenge to President Trump’s economic agenda, which has prioritized reducing America’s massive trade deficits with countries like China.
The ruling specifically targeted the legal basis for the tariffs, with judges writing: “The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.”
The Trump administration has already announced plans to appeal the decision, which could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The case originated from lawsuits filed by Democrat state attorneys general and businesses affected by the tariffs.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat who led one of the lawsuits, celebrated the ruling as “a victory not just for Oregon, but for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans.”
The court’s ruling does not affect existing tariffs on products like aluminum and steel, as those were justified under different legal authorities.
Trade expert Jack Slagle noted that while the ruling represents a setback for the administration, it might not end all tariffs on imported goods, suggesting alternative legal pathways remain available.
President Trump bypassed Congress by declaring a national economic emergency under IEEPA to impose the tariffs.
The White House has maintained that persistent trade deficits constitute a genuine national emergency that affects American communities and defense capabilities.
The legal battle is far from over. The administration’s appeal will likely highlight the president’s broad authority in national economic security and the real threats posed by unfair trade practices.
