US President Donald Trump stops a table on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC, during a trade display “Make America Wealthy”.
Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images News | Getty pictures
The US Court of International Trade on Wednesday imposed steep mutual tariffs from President Donald Trump unilaterally to correct what he said was ongoing trading weights.
The decision deals with the economic agenda of the Republican President and ongoing efforts to negotiate trade agreements with various nations, a potentially serious blow.
The Dow Futures rose in the news about the judgment by 500 points, which the Trump government immediately included in the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circle.
The Supreme Court could have the last word in that case.
In his decision, a three-judge committee on the Court of International Trade said that the law on the international emergency management powers, which Trump called to impose tariffs, did not authorize a president to import universal tasks.
“The worldwide and retaliatory tariffs exceed the authority granted by the IEPA to regulate import by tariffs,” the judges wrote.
And separate, specific tariffs in Canada, Mexico and China in connection with drug trafficking do not fail because they do not deal with the threats set out in these commands, “wrote the committee.
The implementation of tariffs usually requires the consent of the congress.
But Trump decided to avoid the congress by declaring a national economic emergency under IEEPA, which became a law in 1977, and then used the alleged emergency as justification for the shortening of the congress from the process.
The committee not only has a permanent standstill for the tariffs in this case, but also prohibited future modifications for you.
The Trump administration received 10 days to make the necessary changes to carry out the judges' commands.
Several existing tariffs for certain products such as aluminum and steel are not influenced by the decision on Wednesday, since the president does not touch IEPA powers to justify their need.
The spokesman for the White House, Kush Desai, said in an explanation of the judgment: “The non -reciprocal treatment of the United States abroad has heated up historical and continuing trade deficits.”
“These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind and weakened our industrial nose of the defense – facts that the court did not deny.”
“It is not for united judges to decide how a national emergency can be properly addressed,” added Desai.
Read more CNBC policy reporting
One of the leading plaintiffs in the case, General Prosecutor of Oregon, Dan Rayfield, described the judgment “a victory not only for Oregon, but for working families, small companies and everyday Americans”.
“President Trump's comprehensive tariffs were illegal, ruthless and economically devastating,” said Rayfield in a statement.
“They triggered retaliation measures, inflated prices for essential goods and contaminated American families, small companies and manufacturers an unfair burden.”
The trading expert Jack Slagle described the judgment “a significant setback for the administration, which has strongly supported Ieepa to impose tariffs against China, Mexico, Canada and everywhere.”
“Even if the Supreme Court does not enable tariffs, this does not necessarily mean the end of the tariffs for imported goods,” said Slagle, founder of Nexint Global, in an e -mail to CNBC. “It cannot even lead to a relative break in the trade conflict.”
“We can expect the President and his trade advisors to check all options and be clear that this is all far away,” he said.
The judgment on Wednesday reacted to two separate lawsuits that questioned Trump's tariffs.
A lawsuit was submitted by a group of Attorney General. The other lawsuit was submitted by five American companies that rely on goods that have been imported into the USA and are affected by the tariffs.
In its decision, the three-judge committee said that Trump's wage command was “inadmissible in relation to all”, not only for the plaintiffs.
Trump presented comprehensive mutual tariffs for imports from nations around the world on April 2, which were between 11% and 84%.
Days later, on April 9, he spent a 90-day break in the tasks, but kept the 10% of the basic tariffs for most products in the country.
The committee in its judgment on Wednesday said that there was no clear connection between the alleged emergency, with which Trump had the tariffs that reacted to drug trafficking and would have to justify the tariffs in practice.
At the time, Trump had argued that a tariff of 25% on goods from Mexico and Canada and a delivery of 10% were urgently needed for imports from China, since the countries did not “arrest, conflict, detention or otherwise intercept” drug dealers.
However, the judges found that there was no clear connection between the president's declared goal of reducing international drug trafficking, and the method that Trump uses to pursue them: to raise import duties for right -hand trade.
“The recording of tariffs for lawful imports in customs does not obviously refer to the efforts of the foreign governments to arrest bad actors in their respective jurisdiction, to take, capture or to intercept in any other way,” said the committee.
Comments are closed.