Appeals court allows Trump to continue imposing tariffs—for now

  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

President Donald Trump’s tariffs can continue for now, after an appeals court granted the administration’ request to temporarily stay a lower court’s order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Thursday afternoon that it would temporarily pause the effects of a decision from the Court of International Trade, which ruled Wednesday that most of Trump’s tariffs were illegal and must be halted.

The Trump Administration said in a court filing earlier in the day that it would ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief if the appeals court didn’t quickly pause the ruling.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a briefing Thursday that the courts shouldn’t have a role in this issue.

“The president’s rationale for imposing these powerful tariffs was legally sound and grounded in common sense,” she said.

Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 U.S. states.

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the nonprofit Liberty Justice Center who represented the five small businesses that sued, called the appeals court order a mere “procedural step.” He expressed confidence that courts would block the tariffs, which represent “a direct threat” to his clients’ livelihoods.

The administration has other ways to pursue the president’s goal of using tariffs to lure factories back to America, raise money for the U.S. Treasury and pressure other countries into bending to his will.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

7 Comments

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

  1. The Supreme Court has to step in at some point. These lower “federal” courts are essentially saying “Oh, you don’t get to be
    President… we are.” This is WAY beyond separation of powers issues, this is bordering on INSURRECTION. This would be on shaky ground if it were the Supreme Court making rulings like this. These are lower courts that HAVE NO JURISDICTION IN THESE MATTERS WHATSOEVER. Eliminating these courts entirely seems to be the way to go. The Constitution only really allows for the Supreme Court. The others were established later but not be any Constitutional authority.

    1. That’s quite the manifesto. I wasn’t buying your point of view until you started using all caps on key words
      Now I’m all in….

    2. I am certain if the Supreme Court were balanced the other way you would be arguing that the Supreme Court itself should have no authority over the dictator.

    3. I think you may be listening to the wrong people, people who want to be the law rather than obey it. Please go read the constitution.

  2. Spoken like someone who is very familiar with an insurrection. That is as long as the insurrection is orchestrated by the proper person, I mean king.

  3. No, the lower federal courts are created by Constitutional Authority…Article III, Section 1…The judicial power of the Unted States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. So, pursuant to this provision of the Constitution, these courts were created by Congress.

    This is precisely a separation of powers issue. This is exactly how its supposed to work. Congress passes laws. The Executive acts, presumably under authority of the statute. When petitioned, the courts review the actions of the Executive to determine if the Executive has acted within the authority of the statute. If not, the courts enjoin the Executive. Appeals go to the appropriate appellate court, and perhaps to the Supreme Court.

    It’s curious you never heard these arguments about federal trial courts usurping Executive Authority when Clinton, Obama, and Biden were President. Back in those days, Republican Attorneys General flocked to the trial courts in Texas to obtain federal trial court decisions which then went to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, then in a few cases onto the Supreme Court. It was only when Trusk and his MAGAt and MUSKrat followers became the Executive, and chose to ignore the law and the Constitution, that going to federal courts for relief became an issue. HYPOCRITES…

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In