A federal court in the United States has ruled that former President Donald Trump exceeded his legal authority by imposing sweeping import tariffs without congressional approval. The landmark decision, delivered on Wednesday by a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade in Manhattan, could have far-reaching implications for international trade and the global economy.
The court blocked Trump’s tariffs, which were introduced under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and targeted imports from China, Mexico, Canada, and other nations. These tariffs, some as high as 30%, had raised the cost of goods for businesses and everyday consumers across the US.
The judges issued a permanent injunction, effectively suspending Trump’s 30% tariffs on Chinese goods, 25% tariffs on some imports from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% universal tariff on most goods. However, the ruling does not affect the 25% tariffs on autos, steel, aluminum, and auto parts, which were imposed under a different law—the Trade Expansion Act.
The court gave a 10-day window for administrative adjustments, meaning the tariffs will be paused unless the decision is overturned by a higher court. The Trump administration has already appealed, and the case may eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit was filed in April by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of VOS Selections, a wine importer, and four other small businesses that argued the tariffs were crippling their operations. Twelve Democratic-led states also filed a similar suit, which the court considered together with the VOS case.
Legal experts say the ruling is a significant rebuke of presidential overreach. “IEEPA does not give the president authority to impose broad-based tariffs,” the judges wrote. “The emergency orders do not match the threats cited and are therefore unlawful.”
Trump had introduced the tariffs in April, saying they were necessary to counter drug trafficking and to protect American industries. But critics said he used national emergency powers as a cover to implement a protectionist trade agenda, bypassing Congress.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai criticized the ruling, saying, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to respond to a national emergency.” Trump’s former policy adviser, Stephen Miller, reacted angrily, calling the decision “a judicial coup.”
Still, many economists welcomed the ruling. Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US, said it could be a major relief for small and medium-sized businesses that cannot afford the extra costs tariffs bring.
“This ruling is a game changer,” said Jeffrey Schwab, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “No president should have the power to impose taxes on Americans without Congress.”
If upheld, the court’s decision could signal a shift in how future administrations use emergency powers for economic policy—and restore Congress’s primary role in setting trade laws.
