Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs Under IEEPA

Spread love

A divided appellate court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) cannot justify tariffs, prompting Trump to vow appeal as legal scholars debate presidential authority under Article II.

By TRH Global Affairs Desk

NEW DELHI, August 30, 2025—A federal appeals court has struck down most of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that the statute does not authorize the executive branch to levy tariffs absent explicit congressional approval.

The decision, delivered ahead of Labour Day weekend, sparked immediate controversy and is expected to head to the Supreme Court. The majority opinion held that IEEPA, a Cold War–era statute, gives the president broad authority to regulate trade in times of declared national emergency but does not use the words “tariffs,” “duties,” “taxes,” or similar terms.

As such, the judges ruled that the administration’s interpretation stretched the statute beyond recognition. Legal scholar Philip Wallach noted that “Congress doesn’t hide tariff elephants in mouseholes,” emphasizing that when lawmakers want to grant tariff powers, they do so explicitly.

The ruling invoked the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), which has increasingly been used by the Roberts Court to limit executive action where clear statutory grounding is absent. Citing precedents such as the Supreme Court’s rejection of the COVID-19 eviction moratorium and the student loan forgiveness program, the court held that tariffs represented a sweeping economic measure that Congress had not authorized under IEEPA.

But the ruling was far from unanimous. Four judges dissented, arguing that tariffs were indeed among the tools IEEPA makes available in emergencies. They emphasized that Trump’s executive orders laid out “serious national security concerns,” including drug flows from Mexico and Canada and economic threats from China.

Legal analyst Marc R. Lavin underscored in a post on X that “the combination of broad statutory authority and Article II powers trump the issues raised by the court’s majority,” warning that judges risk substituting their policy preferences for presidential judgment.

The decision has set up a high-stakes constitutional clash over the scope of executive power.

In dissent, several judges argued that Congress remains the appropriate check on presidential tariff authority, not the courts. The case could redefine how the separation of powers applies to trade and foreign policy.

Reacting defiantly, Trump posted on Truth Social: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country.”

Legal observers widely expect the Supreme Court to intervene, with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and likely Alito seen as sympathetic to Trump’s arguments for expansive presidential authority in matters of trade and national security.

The outcome will determine whether the president’s power to impose tariffs under emergency declarations is legally sound or constitutionally overreaching—a ruling with sweeping implications for US trade policy, the balance of powers, and the future of the Major Questions Doctrine.

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn