The Dictatorship
Appeals court rules against Trump tariffs, but Supreme Court appeal may soon follow
A federal appeals court ruled against President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Friday, but the ruling won’t take immediate effect because the court is giving the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. So as with nearly every big issue in American life, the justices may have the last word.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration will appeal. The president said in his own social media post that if the ruling stands it would “literally destroy the United States of America.”
The ruling came Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It dealt with five executive orders imposing tariffs “of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world,” as the court put it. The U.S. Court of International Trade had previously ruled in May that the tariffs ran afoul of a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The government appealed to the Federal Circuit, which upheld the trade court on Friday.
“Because we agree that IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to ‘regulate’ imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm,” the appeals court said, adding that it wasn’t weighing in on “whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy.”
The court also said that further review is needed back in the trade court regarding the universal injunction it granted. The appeals court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the birthright citizenship case that dealt with that subject in June, after the trade court ruling came out.
The Federal Circuit’s ruling on Friday split the 11 judges who heard the case 7-4.
The judges also issued an order accompanying the ruling that keeps it from taking effect through Oct. 14. If a Supreme Court appeal is filed by then, the appellate ruling will remain on hold either until the Supreme Court declines review or issues its own ruling.
Four judges added a separate opinion that agreed with the majority, but further expressed their view that IEEPA not only doesn’t authorize Trump to issue the tariffs in these executive orders, but that it doesn’t authorize him to issue any tariffs at all.
Four other judges dissented, writing that they agreed with the majority that the trade court had jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs had standing to bring a lawsuit and that (if the tariffs are unlawful) the case needs to be sent back to the lower court for further review; but they disagreed with the substance of the lower court’s ruling that the tariffs are unlawful.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.