by Daniel Brouse
May 29, 2025
In a landmark decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade has struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping 2025 tariffs, ruling that he unilaterally overstepped his authority by imposing blanket tariffs on all imported goods under a disputed claim of national security. The court called the move “legally untenable” and a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
A First in Modern History: Blanket Tariffs on All Imports
On April 2, 2025, the Trump administration began enforcing unilateral tariffs on all imported goods, with rates starting at 10% and rising to 50%. This marked the most extensive use of presidential trade power in U.S. history, applying broadly to all imports from every trading partner, including NATO allies.
President Trump invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a statute that allows limited import restrictions if national security is genuinely at risk. He argued that decades of deindustrialization and overreliance on foreign suppliers had left the U.S. vulnerable in times of crisis.
Critics said the move was a gross distortion of the law’s intent—using a narrow national defense exemption to pursue full-scale economic nationalism without congressional approval.
The Court’s Ruling: “No Statutory Basis”
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s action exceeded the authority granted by Congress.
Judge Jane Restani, writing for the panel, stated:
“Section 232 provides targeted authority to address real threats to national security. It does not authorize the president to impose tariffs on all imports in pursuit of broader policy goals. To do so is to legislate without Congress.”
The court faulted the administration for:
-
Lack of Evidence: It found no clear connection between many of the affected imports and actual threats to national security.
-
Violation of Constitutional Structure: By imposing universal tariffs, the administration had assumed powers explicitly delegated to Congress under the Commerce Clause.
Reaction from Legal Experts and Industry
Legal Scholars:
Trade and constitutional law scholars applauded the decision as a critical defense of legislative authority. Professor Eli Mendelsohn of Columbia Law School called it “the strongest signal yet that courts will not rubber-stamp national security justifications for sweeping economic actions.”
Business Groups:
Retailers, manufacturers, and agricultural importers expressed relief. The American Apparel & Footwear Association said the ruling would “prevent a cost shock that would have rippled through every household in the country.”
The White House:
A spokesperson for the Trump administration denounced the ruling, saying:
“President Trump acted to defend American sovereignty, jobs, and strength. This ruling undermines national security and invites economic sabotage.”
They confirmed the White House will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Broader Implications for Trade and Governance
This ruling carries significant weight for the future of U.S. trade policy:
-
Reins in Presidential Power: Courts are no longer willing to allow open-ended executive authority on trade under vague legal provisions.
-
Reaffirms Congressional Role: The decision reasserts that only Congress can overhaul tariff policy—especially on such a sweeping scale.
-
Raises Legal Bar for Section 232: Future administrations must show clear, product-specific, and defensible links to national security threats.
Conclusion:
Futures markets responded with cautious optimism to the court’s ruling. While investors welcomed the reaffirmation of constitutional limits on presidential power—and the prospect of a more restrained executive—they remain concerned about the lasting economic fallout. Significant damage has already been inflicted: global supply chains are disrupted, long-standing trade agreements with allies have been unilaterally nullified, and international trust in U.S. trade reliability has been eroded. Additionally, tariffs on key sectors such as automobiles, steel, and aluminum remain firmly in place. Substantial and economically impactful tariffs on China continue to persist, including product-specific Section 301 tariffs ranging from 25% to 100%, 25% Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, and the closure of the de minimis exemption on all retail shipments from China. The court ordered the Trump administration to issue revised directives reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days. However, minutes later, the administration filed a notice of appeal and publicly challenged the court’s authority, framing the intervention as a matter of national sovereignty.
Bond markets reacted negatively, with interest rates rising amid concerns that the Trump administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill” will further increase the deficit and exacerbate the already unsustainable national debt.