Washington — A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday temporarily halted a federal trade court’s decision blocking most of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, for now reinstating the levies imposed by the president under an emergency powers law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a brief order that it would grant the Trump administration’s request for an immediate administrative stay “to the extent that the judgments and the permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in these cases are temporarily stayed” for now.
A three-judge panel on the trade court unanimously ruled Wednesday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which Mr. Trump invoked to impose the levies, did not give the president the authority to set unlimited tariffs on imports from nearly every foreign nation.
The U.S. Court of International Trade permanently blocked Mr. Trump’s 10% tariff assessed on virtually every U.S. trading partner, as well as the president’s duties on imports from Mexico, Canada and China, which the president had imposed in response to what he said was the trafficking of drugs into the U.S. The judges had given the Trump administration 10 days to put their permanent injunction in effect.
“IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders,” the trade court found. “The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the president by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.”
The Justice Department asked the Federal Circuit to review the trade court’s decision and also requested it halt that ruling while it considers the appeal. The administration warned in a filing Thursday that absent interim relief, it would turn to the Supreme Court “to avoid the irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake.”
In its brief order, the Federal Circuit gave the two sets of plaintiffs — five U.S.-based companies and a group of 12 states — until June 5 to response to the Trump administration’s request for a stay. The appeals court has agreed to consider the pair of cases together.
The decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade was a significant setback for Mr. Trump’s economic agenda, a centerpiece of which are his tariffs. The president has argued that the duties are crucial to returning manufacturing jobs to the U.S. and will raise more than $1 trillion in revenue. Mr. Trump has also used the tariffs and the threat of higher rates as leverage to force trade partners into negotiations.
The president rolled out his 10% tariffs, as well as a set of now-paused “reciprocal” tariffs, in April on what the White House dubbed “Liberation Day.”
But the president’s tariffs have shaken financial markets and sparked fears of an economic downturn. Mr. Trump has also halted some of the duties, including the “reciprocal” tariffs on 57 trading partners.
Mr. Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs led to more than half-a-dozen lawsuits from states and businesses impacted by the duties. The plaintiffs argued that the president did not have the authority to unilaterally slap the tariffs on trading partners under the IEEPA, which has never before been used in that way.
The three judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed, writing in their decision that it “does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority.”
In a separate dispute brought by two Illinois-based toy companies, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that Mr. Trump’s tariffs imposed under the emergency powers law are unlawful.
Contreras found that IEEPA “does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs set forth” in his executive orders and barred the Trump administration from collecting any tariff deriving from them from the two companies. The judge paused his order for 14 days to give the Justice Department time to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which the administration has said it will do.
The case, Contreras wrote in a 33-page decision, “is about whether IEEPA enables the president to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy. The court agrees with plaintiffs that it does not.”
