WASHINGTON, D.C.: A federal appellate court expressed serious doubts Thursday over former President Donald Trump’s legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under an emergency law never previously used for such purposes. The case could soon be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, with potentially far-reaching implications for presidential control over trade policy.
During a 99-minute hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, several of the 11 judges challenged the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — a 1977 law intended for financial sanctions during national emergencies — to justify imposing tariffs without congressional approval.
“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” noted Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna, highlighting a core issue in the legal dispute.
Attorney Brett Schumate, defending Trump’s move, conceded that no previous administration had interpreted IEEPA in this manner but insisted that the U.S. trade deficit constituted a national emergency warranting such action. He argued the law gives the president broad and flexible powers in emergencies, though he denied that Trump sought “unbounded authority.”
But Chief Judge Kimberly Moore pushed back on that argument.
“If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness and he puts a 20% tax on coffee — that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with it,” she remarked.
Attorney Neal Katyal, representing the plaintiffs — which include 12 U.S. states and several private companies — called the Trump administration’s stance a “breathtaking” overreach, saying it effectively allows the president to bypass Congress entirely by simply declaring an emergency.
“It amounts to saying the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants,” Katyal argued.
From Trade Courts to the High Court
The legal battle stems from Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed on April 2, which levied duties on nearly all U.S. imports. These specific tariffs — unlike others aimed at China or sectors like steel and autos — are at the heart of this lawsuit.
In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA. The current appeal seeks to overturn that decision.
No ruling was issued Thursday, but legal observers say the case is almost certain to land before the Supreme Court, given the constitutional questions it raises about separation of powers and emergency authority.
Trump, commenting on the proceedings via Truth Social, defended his policy, saying:
“If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE ‘DEAD,’ WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS.”
Presidential Power vs. Congressional Control
While the U.S. Constitution grants Congress power over tariffs, presidents have gained growing influence over trade policy through decades of statutory delegations. Trump exploited those provisions more aggressively than any of his predecessors, pushing average U.S. tariff rates above 18% — the highest since 1934, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab.
This case is one of at least seven lawsuits challenging Trump’s tariff measures, and its outcome may redefine the balance of trade authority between the executive branch and Congress for years to come.
