A US appeals court has ruled that most of the tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump were unlawful, setting up a likely legal confrontation that could reshape his foreign policy legacy.
The decision strikes down Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, applied to dozens of countries worldwide, as well as additional levies on China, Mexico and Canada.
In a 7–4 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump’s claim that the tariffs were justified under emergency economic powers, calling them “invalid as contrary to law.”
The judgment is scheduled to take effect on October 14, allowing the administration time to petition the Supreme Court for review.
Trump denounced the ruling on Truth Social, declaring: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”
He added: “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. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”
Trump had justified his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives presidents authority to respond to “unusual and extraordinary” threats. He argued that chronic trade imbalances threatened US national security.
But the appeals court concluded that tariffs fell outside presidential powers, describing them as “a core Congressional power” that could not be overridden.
In its 127-page opinion, the court wrote that the IEEPA “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president’s power to impose tariffs.”
The judges ruled that Congress has retained the authority to set taxes and tariffs, and nothing in the 1977 law altered that arrangement.
They noted it was improbable that Congress intended to “depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”
“Whenever Congress intends to delegate to the president the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs,” the court wrote.
The ruling stemmed from two lawsuits, one brought by small businesses, and another by a coalition of US states, challenging Trump’s sweeping trade measures.
The cases targeted Trump’s April executive orders, which imposed a baseline 10% tariff on nearly every country and introduced “reciprocal” tariffs to counter trade imbalances. Trump declared the measure a “liberation day” for America from unfair trade practices.
Earlier, in May, the Court of International Trade had already declared the tariffs unlawful. That decision, however, was put on hold during the appeals process.
Friday’s ruling also invalidated tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China that Trump claimed were needed to combat drug imports.
Not all tariffs were struck down. Measures on steel and aluminium, introduced under a different statute, remain in effect.
White House lawyers had warned in advance that overturning the tariffs could trigger economic turmoil reminiscent of the 1929 Wall Street crash.
“Suddenly revoking the president’s tariff authority under IEEPA would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy, and economy,” they wrote in a legal filing.
“The president believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin.”
The ruling has also raised questions about trade agreements negotiated with other nations under Trump, many of which were linked to reduced tariff rates.
With the appellate court’s decision, the case now appears almost certain to move to the Supreme Court, which in recent years has taken a sceptical view of presidents using broad interpretations of existing laws to justify sweeping powers.
During President Joe Biden’s term, the justices invoked the “major questions doctrine” to block efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and to cancel federal student loan debt for millions of borrowers.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, the nine justices will decide whether Trump’s expansive tariff programme represented presidential overreach or whether it was adequately grounded in existing law.
Despite the setback, the administration may take some comfort in the fact that only three of the 11 appellate judges were appointed by Republicans.
At the Supreme Court, however, the balance tilts more heavily to the right. Six of the nine justices are Republican appointees, including three chosen by Trump himself.
