WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has given former President Donald Trump a temporary lifeline in his bid to keep controversial tariffs in place, suspending a lower court order that had declared many of them illegal.
The decision, handed down late Thursday, allows the White House to continue collecting import duties while the legal wrangling plays out. At stake is one of Trump’s signature trade policies, which disrupted global markets and sparked tensions with longtime US allies.
The lower court, the US Court of International Trade, ruled on Wednesday that Trump had gone beyond the authority granted to him by Congress. The judgement specifically targeted sweeping tariffs he imposed on imports from China, Mexico and Canada in February, as well as a blanket 10% duty on a wide range of global goods introduced last month.
The court said the president had used a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in a way it was never intended for—without proper consultation with Congress. However, it did not touch earlier tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium, which were issued under a different law tied to national security.
Trump swiftly condemned the lower court’s decision. “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, country-threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY,” he wrote on social media Thursday morning.
White House Defends Presidential Power
The White House argued in its appeal that courts had no place interfering in the executive’s handling of foreign and trade policy. “The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy,” the government wrote in its legal filing.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the ruling risked undermining the president’s ability to negotiate tough deals abroad. “America cannot function if President Trump or any other president has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,” she told reporters Thursday.
For now, the appeals court has agreed. The next hearing is set for 5 June, with both sides expected to dig in for a lengthy legal fight.
Small Businesses Caught in the Crossfire
While the case turns on constitutional authority, the real-world effects have been felt most acutely by businesses. Many small companies have struggled with the unpredictability of tariff changes over the past few years.
Kara Dyer, owner of Story Time Toys in Boston, which imports products from China, said she welcomed the initial ruling with cautious optimism.
“I was incredibly happy and relieved,” she said. “But I’m also still very cautious. It’s just been so chaotic and impossible to plan as a business.”
Legal Paths and Political Strategy
Even if courts ultimately rule against the tariffs, Trump’s advisers have hinted he might simply try again through another legal route.
“You can assume that even if we lose in court, we will do it another way,” said Peter Navarro, Trump’s former trade adviser.
There are options. The White House could still invoke Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security grounds. That’s the legal basis for the steel and aluminium duties. There’s also Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which Trump used to target Chinese imports during his first term.
One more rarely used law Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act gives the president sweeping powers to impose duties if a trading partner is seen as discriminating against the United States. But it hasn’t been used in decades.
Experts Weigh In
Legal scholars remain divided. Ilya Somin, a law professor who supported the business-led challenge, said he remained “guardedly optimistic” that the original ruling would be upheld on appeal. He noted the decision was issued by a panel including judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents one of them by Trump himself.
“It’s not normal for a president to make such an enormous power grab and start the biggest trade war since the Great Depression,” Somin said.
Others believe the courts may ultimately side with the executive.
Terry Haines, a former Capitol Hill staffer and founder of Pangaea Policy, said: “The president is probably going to be given the benefit of the doubt.”
A Weakened Negotiating Tool
Beyond the courtroom, the legal battle has had ripple effects on global trade talks.
Dmitry Grozoubinski, a former Australian trade negotiator, said the ruling undercuts Trump’s ability to pressure other countries. “This was a negotiation in which Trump threatened other nations with a big stick,” he said. “That stick just got a lot smaller.”
For now, Trump’s tariffs stay in place. But with multiple court cases underway and a likely path to the Supreme Court, the real decision may still be months away. And for businesses caught in the middle, uncertainty remains the only constant.
