A federal appeals court has ruled that most of the tariffs imposed by former US President Donald Trump were unlawful, in a decision that could reshape trade policy and set up a high-stakes legal fight at the Supreme Court.
In a 7–4 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, including his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs applied to dozens of countries, as well as additional tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. The judges found that Trump had overstepped his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the president to act against “unusual and extraordinary” threats.
The court said that while the law grants broad emergency powers, it does not give the president the authority to impose tariffs — a power that belongs to Congress. “The IEEPA neither mentions tariffs nor has safeguards limiting the president’s ability to impose them,” the court wrote in its 127-page decision, adding that Congress historically has been explicit when delegating tariff authority.
The ruling, which will take effect on 14 October unless the Supreme Court intervenes, followed lawsuits filed by small businesses and a coalition of states. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s tariffs — including a baseline 10% levy on nearly all countries — had harmed their economic interests.
Trump reacted angrily on his Truth Social platform, calling the decision “highly partisan” and warning that reversing his tariffs would “literally destroy the United States of America.” He insisted that removing the levies would weaken the country financially, adding: “If these tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the country.”
The case highlights a central dispute over presidential power. Trump had declared a national emergency on trade, arguing that trade deficits posed a threat to US national security. His administration said the tariffs were needed to protect industries and prevent the importation of drugs. Lawyers for the White House argued during the appeal that striking down the tariffs could cause “catastrophic consequences” for the economy, comparing the potential fallout to the 1929 Wall Street crash.
Friday’s ruling does not affect tariffs imposed under other legal authorities, such as duties on steel and aluminium, but it does call into question trade deals negotiated with countries that accepted reduced rates in exchange for concessions.
The legal battle now appears headed to the Supreme Court, which in recent years has limited presidential efforts to use existing statutes for sweeping new policies. With six conservative justices, including three appointed by Trump, the Court’s eventual ruling could have major implications for the balance of power between Congress and the presidency.
For now, the appeals court decision represents a major blow to Trump’s trade legacy and throws uncertainty over US tariff policy, just as global trade tensions remain a central issue in Washington’s foreign and economic agenda.
