US Court Blocks Trump's Tariff Initiative, Impacting Economic Policy
Federal court decision halts widespread tariffs, citing overreach of presidential authority.
On Thursday, a New York-based international trade court blocked President Donald Trump's comprehensive tariffs, introduced under the banner of 'Liberation Day.' This ruling represents a significant setback for one of the president's key economic policy initiatives.
The International Trade Court in Manhattan determined that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking a 1977 federal economic emergency law to implement the tariffs.
The court stated that the statute does not empower the president to unilaterally levy tariffs on nearly all countries.
The decision came in response to separate lawsuits filed by a coalition of businesses and state officials.
The court emphasized that the law 'does not authorize' the president to impose tariffs based on emergency powers.
The Trump administration immediately filed an appeal against the ruling.
Kush Desai, deputy press secretary at the White House, commented in a statement, "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to appropriately manage a national emergency."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has previously clashed with Trump, welcomed the court's decision.
She stated, "The law is clear: no president has the right to raise tariffs at will."
Oregon Senator Ron Wyden criticized Trump's claim that he could impose high tariffs on imported goods by mere executive order, asserting this was an 'utter distortion' of constitutional authority.
The ruling was positively received in the financial markets, with S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures rising immediately following the announcement.
Oil prices also increased, with Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude rising over 1.25% per barrel.
In Asia, the Japanese Nikkei reported a 1.5% increase, while South Korea’s Kospi rose by approximately 1%.
The decision can be appealed to the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C., and could eventually reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
Should the courts uphold the ruling, businesses subject to tariffs would be entitled to refunds for amounts paid, along with interest.
Experts note that the decision heightens uncertainty regarding the Trump administration's future actions, regardless of how the appeal proceeds.
Tariffs are taxes imposed on goods imported from other countries, generally calculated as a percentage of the product's value.
Trump has argued that these tariffs would encourage Americans to purchase more domestically manufactured goods.
However, the tariffs have sparked international backlash.
In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revised its global economic growth forecasts for 2025 downward due to the impact of tariffs, predicting that the United States would be the most affected country.
The International Trade Court in Manhattan determined that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking a 1977 federal economic emergency law to implement the tariffs.
The court stated that the statute does not empower the president to unilaterally levy tariffs on nearly all countries.
The decision came in response to separate lawsuits filed by a coalition of businesses and state officials.
The court emphasized that the law 'does not authorize' the president to impose tariffs based on emergency powers.
The Trump administration immediately filed an appeal against the ruling.
Kush Desai, deputy press secretary at the White House, commented in a statement, "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to appropriately manage a national emergency."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has previously clashed with Trump, welcomed the court's decision.
She stated, "The law is clear: no president has the right to raise tariffs at will."
Oregon Senator Ron Wyden criticized Trump's claim that he could impose high tariffs on imported goods by mere executive order, asserting this was an 'utter distortion' of constitutional authority.
The ruling was positively received in the financial markets, with S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures rising immediately following the announcement.
Oil prices also increased, with Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude rising over 1.25% per barrel.
In Asia, the Japanese Nikkei reported a 1.5% increase, while South Korea’s Kospi rose by approximately 1%.
The decision can be appealed to the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C., and could eventually reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
Should the courts uphold the ruling, businesses subject to tariffs would be entitled to refunds for amounts paid, along with interest.
Experts note that the decision heightens uncertainty regarding the Trump administration's future actions, regardless of how the appeal proceeds.
Tariffs are taxes imposed on goods imported from other countries, generally calculated as a percentage of the product's value.
Trump has argued that these tariffs would encourage Americans to purchase more domestically manufactured goods.
However, the tariffs have sparked international backlash.
In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revised its global economic growth forecasts for 2025 downward due to the impact of tariffs, predicting that the United States would be the most affected country.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
