A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled by a 7–4 majority that most of Donald Trump’s tariffs were imposed unlawfully, finding that he exceeded the powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court determined that the statute does not provide presidents with carte blanche to levy broad import duties, underscoring the constitutional principle that the power to regulate trade and impose tariffs resides with Congress. While the tariffs remain in place until mid-October under a temporary stay, the stage is now set for a consequential Supreme Court battle.
The decision, consolidated under V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, builds on earlier findings from the Court of International Trade and the D.C. district court, both of which rejected the use of emergency proclamations to justify tariff measures tied to issues as varied as trade deficits and fentanyl. By affirming those lower court rulings, the appeals court reinforced a clear boundary between executive action and legislative authority.
For legal practitioners and corporate counsel, the ruling carries far-reaching implications. It signals judicial unwillingness to tolerate expansive interpretations of emergency statutes and affirms that revenue-raising powers demand explicit congressional delegation. Companies affected by the tariffs may find themselves navigating claims for refunds or recalibrating compliance strategies in anticipation of shifting trade regimes. At the same time, uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court appeal is likely to prolong business planning challenges and international negotiation complexities.
Beyond the technicalities of trade law, the ruling highlights a constitutional tension with broader resonance: the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. By curbing presidential latitude in this high-stakes area, the judiciary has reasserted a vital check within the separation of powers framework. Whether the Supreme Court ultimately upholds or overturns this ruling, the case has already crystallised a legal precedent with implications for future administrations seeking to weaponise tariffs through executive fiat.
