In yet another twist in the ongoing saga of the Trump administration’s trade policies, a federal court has thrown a wrench into the works by ruling that most of the tariffs imposed by the former president are illegal. The ruling accuses him of overstepping his authority. Naturally, Trump, never one to stay quiet, took to Truth Social to declare that if these tariffs were to disappear, it would spell financial disaster for the country. His supporters could almost hear the melodrama echoing through their screens.
This legal dance is a result of the Trump administration’s interpretation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. The court clarified that, despite what any president might wish, all constitutional authority for enacting tariffs lies squarely with Congress. In other words, the court gently reminded everyone that the president can’t just slap tariffs on whatever he pleases, even if it’s for the good of the country or his political agenda. It’s almost as if the Constitution still means something, even in the modern era of impromptu Twitter diplomacy.
The court’s decision was rather strong, at a 7-4 ruling, which means it wasn’t just a whimsical slap on the wrist. This decision poses a challenge not just for the particular tariffs in question but also for the broader approach to international trade that Trump advocates. It calls into question the ability to use economic power as a bargaining chip on the world stage, which has been a central tenet of his administration’s strategy. It’s like a game of chess where someone suddenly decides that the knight can move like a bishop and then acts surprised when everyone else insists on following the rules.
This case is interesting to watch, especially if it makes its way to the Supreme Court. One thing is clear: the broad and sweeping nature of these so-called Liberation Day tariffs won’t make it through unchallenged. The major questions doctrine demands clear congressional language when giving such significant power to the president. In this case, the wording around these tariffs was anything but clear, which makes the ruling feel like a no-brainer, even if some members of the government might feel like they’re the ones getting schooled.
The opposition to these tariffs isn’t just from political opponents; the case was originally brought by five small businesses, joined by a dozen states. With the potential for the government to have to repay these businesses if the ruling stands, it’s a financial puzzle—and a political one—that won’t be easily solved. The dissent in the ruling, notably from judges appointed by both Obama and Bush, suggests that this isn’t just a simple partisan issue but rather a question of what authority truly belongs where. Once again, the saga continues, with eyes now turning towards whatever legal and political antics might unfold next.
