From News Desk
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs exceeded the limits of federal law. The decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal effort to restore constitutional checks and balances to presidential trade actions—and echoes key arguments raised by Consumer Watchdog in its amicus brief in V.O.S. Selections vs Trump.
In a significant per curiam opinion with a 7-4 majority, the court concluded –
- “We affirm the [Court of International Trade’s] holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text.”
The Court further held that the President’s orders were “invalid as contrary to law” and emphasised that the power to impose tariffs or taxes lies firmly with Congress –
- “Absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes.”
- “The power of the purse (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress.”
The ruling highlights the sweeping economic consequences of the government’s theory.
The Court noted –
- “The Government’s estimates of the Reciprocal and Trafficking Tariff’s impact are at least five times larger” than those in prior major questions doctrine cases and “the overall economic impact of the tariffs imposed under the Government’s reading of IEEPA is even larger still.”
“This is an important decision for both constitutional accountability and economic fairness,” said William Pletcher, litigation director at Consumer Watchdog. “The Court properly rejected the idea that any president can bypass Congress and impose tariffs at will under the banner of emergency powers.”
The Court declined, however, to extend the preliminary injunction that had temporarily halted enforcement of the tariffs. It remanded that issue for further consideration under new standards announced by the US Supreme Court –
- “The CIT should consider in the first instance whether its grant of a universal injunction comports with the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in CASA.”
While the ruling strikes a clear legal blow to unchecked executive tariff authority, the court declined to extend the injunction that had temporarily blocked the tariffs in this case. As a result, the unlawful measures technically remain in effect unless further judicial or administrative action follows.
“This ruling affirms the legal limits on executive power, but the impact on consumers and businesses continues,” said Pletcher. “The court made clear that these tariffs go beyond what the law allows, but without ongoing relief, families and businesses are still feeling the weight of tariffs the Court has now declared unlawful. We’ll continue pushing to ensure this legal victory has real-world consequences, so consumers get relief from these tariffs. This decision lays essential groundwork, but the work isn’t done.”
Consumer Watchdog has filed similar amicus briefs in the Ninth and DC Circuits challenging the misuse of emergency economic powers to impose domestic economic penalties—including tariffs—without congressional approval or public accountability. The organisation argues that such actions amount to a regressive, opaque tax regime imposed beyond what the Constitution allows.
Disclaimer – The details expressed in this post are from the companies responsible for circulating this post for publication. This website doesn’t endorse the details published here. Readers are urged to use their own discretion while making a decision about using this information in any way. There has been no monetary benefit to the Publisher/Editor/Website Owner for publishing this post and the Website Owner takes no responsibility for the impacts of using this information in any way.
Global Perspectives... 