In a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, a federal court ruled Wednesday that he cannot rely on an emergency law to unilaterally impose tariffs on countries across the globe. The decision blocks a series of tariff orders issued since February that had unsettled financial markets.
The ruling, delivered by a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade, determined that Congress never gave Trump unrestricted authority to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a statute central to his administration’s legal defense.
“An unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,” the court stated in its unsigned opinion. The judges emphasized that unchecked executive power in trade matters would violate constitutional principles.
“Regardless of whether the court views the President’s actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional,” the opinion continued.
Trump’s legal team swiftly appealed the ruling on Wednesday evening, signaling an ongoing battle over executive authority in economic policymaking.
The IEEPA allows the president to implement economic sanctions in response to national emergencies involving “unusual and extraordinary threats.” Traditionally used to freeze foreign assets and restrict financial transactions, the law was designed to provide the executive branch tools to respond to crises such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and nuclear proliferation.
Trump, however, tried to stretch the scope of the law to justify imposing extensive tariffs. He cited persistent trade deficits and the dangers posed by international drug cartels as reasons to declare a national emergency and take sweeping trade actions.
“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai in response to the ruling. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute,” Desai added. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”
Wednesday’s court decision specifically halts the enforcement of Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, which included a blanket 10 percent duty on all imports and higher, “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries. The ruling also nullifies earlier tariffs directed at major U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, and China. While some of those tariffs had already been postponed or adjusted due to negative market reactions—including stock declines and rising Treasury yields—the court’s ruling effectively invalidates them.
The judges provided the administration with a 10-day window to issue any administrative directives required to implement the decision.
The panel comprised Judge Timothy Reif, appointed by Trump; Judge Jane Restani, appointed by President Ronald Reagan; and Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed by President Barack Obama. Despite their different political backgrounds, all three judges agreed that the president had exceeded his legal authority.
The ruling stems from two lawsuits that form part of a broader legal offensive against Trump’s use of tariffs. One case was brought by a coalition of small businesses, primarily targeting the “Liberation Day” tariffs. The other lawsuit was led by a group of Democratic attorneys general, with Oregon at the forefront, and challenged a broader collection of tariff measures enacted under the IEEPA.
Before reaching its conclusion on the scope of the IEEPA, the court first dismissed a threshold argument from the Trump administration, which contended that the president’s trade actions were political decisions outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
“This reliance on the political question doctrine is misplaced,” the panel wrote in its unanimous opinion, asserting that the judiciary has the authority to interpret the limits of statutory powers granted to the executive.
The decision marks another chapter in the continuing debate over presidential powers in economic and trade policy. While Congress has gradually ceded significant authority to the executive branch in the realm of international commerce over the decades, the court’s ruling serves as a reminder that there are still legal boundaries that cannot be crossed, even during a declared emergency.
Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs has been a cornerstone of his “America First” agenda. His administration has argued that the country’s trade deficits are not merely economic issues but also national security threats. By framing trade imbalances and foreign supply chain dependencies as emergencies under the IEEPA, Trump sought to gain leverage over trading partners and bypass traditional congressional approval processes.
Critics, however, have long argued that using the IEEPA to justify sweeping trade measures undermines both the intent of the law and the constitutional balance of powers. Legal experts have warned that accepting such an interpretation would set a dangerous precedent by granting the president virtually unchecked control over international trade policy.
Wednesday’s ruling aligns with those concerns, offering a rebuke of efforts to expand presidential power in a way that bypasses legislative oversight. The court’s insistence that any delegation of power must be constrained by clear statutory limits echoes previous judicial decisions that have placed constitutional checks on the executive.
Though the Trump administration’s appeal could eventually lead the case to the Supreme Court, the immediate effect of the ruling is to block the implementation of tariffs that had threatened to escalate tensions with key allies and further destabilize financial markets.
The ruling also has implications for future presidents who might seek to invoke emergency laws for economic interventions. By reaffirming that even in times of crisis the president cannot exceed the powers granted by Congress, the decision underscores the enduring importance of constitutional safeguards in policymaking.
As the legal process continues, the debate over how far presidential powers should extend in the realm of trade and national emergencies is likely to remain a contentious issue. While Trump’s appeal may challenge the court’s interpretation of the IEEPA, for now, the ruling stands as a decisive limitation on the executive branch’s authority to wield emergency powers for sweeping economic actions.
With 10 days to comply, the Trump administration faces both a legal and political challenge in adjusting its trade policies without the broad emergency powers it sought to claim. The outcome of the appeal process will likely shape not only Trump’s legacy on trade but also the broader contours of executive power in future administrations.
The book launch garnered widespread attention and praise, underscoring the impact of India’s cultural footprint at one of the world’s most prestigious film festivals. Among the many distinguished guests attending the event were acclaimed figures from across the globe, including legendary Hollywood producer Ashok Amritraj, billionaire industrialist Prakash Hinduja, William Pfeiffer, Chairman of Global Gate, celebrated art historian Sundaram Tagore, and a range of internationally renowned filmmakers such as Gurinder Chaddha, Rima Das, Sudhir Misra, Pan Nalin, Deepak Tijori, and Vijay Singh. Together with leading personalities from both Indian and global cinema, they came together in a show of solidarity and celebration of India’s cultural ascent.
influencer. Bhuvan Lall, clearly moved by the moment, shared his personal reflections on the launch and his decades-long association with Cannes. “Cannes 2025 has been a dream come true, both for my journey of 3 decades at the festival and the launch of Namaste Cannes. I’m honored to share this story of India’s soft power with the world,” he said.
The selection of Cannes as the venue for this launch was deeply symbolic. As one of the most celebrated film festivals in the world, Cannes has long been a benchmark for cinematic excellence. Holding the book launch here sent a powerful message about how far India has come in terms of artistic recognition and global outreach. For Bhuvan Lall, whose own relationship with the festival spans over thirty years, it was a moment of deep personal and professional fulfillment.
