A U.S. trade court has ruled against former President Donald Trump’s plan to impose broad tariffs on imports. The three-judge panel decided that Trump overstepped his authority when he announced these new taxes on foreign goods. Typically, Congress must approve tariffs, but Trump claimed he could act due to a "national emergency."
This ruling comes after Trump’s controversial measures were unveiled on "Liberation Day" in April. Among these was a proposed 10% tariff on imports from the UK, which sparked significant sell-offs in the stock market. Just moments after the court’s decision, the Trump administration filed an appeal, which could escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
Several lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s tariffs, including one from five small businesses that import goods like wine and musical instruments. These businesses argued that the extra costs were threatening their survival.
Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, criticized the ruling on social media, calling it a "judicial coup." Meanwhile, Oregon’s attorney general, Dan Rayfield, welcomed the decision, labeling the tariffs as unlawful and harmful to the economy. Senator Ron Wyden, a leading Democrat, stated that Trump’s actions had raised prices on essential goods and disrupted supply chains.
Before the court’s intervention, a flat 10% tariff was in effect, with higher rates set to be implemented on July 9. Economists worried that these tariffs could worsen inflation and potentially lead to a recession. Following the court’s ruling, the U.S. dollar strengthened, and stock market futures rose.
Interestingly, one of the judges who ruled on the case was appointed by Trump, while the others were appointed by Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. This diverse panel highlights the complex nature of judicial decisions in politically charged cases.
The court’s ruling raises questions about ongoing trade agreements, including a recent deal between the UK and the U.S. that aimed to reduce tariffs on British cars and eliminate duties on steel and aluminum. It remains to be seen how the trade court’s decision will impact these negotiations.