The U.S. court system has delivered a major blow to President Trump’s plan to impose new tariffs, creating serious doubt about whether the proposed reciprocal tariffs, scheduled for July, will move forward. Recent rulings, including a key decision from the International Trade Court, question the legal basis for these tariffs. The decisions have raised concerns about how much authority the president has to act alone on trade matters. This has added new tension to trade talks and has weakened support from Congress.
Businesses and state leaders have spoken out strongly against the tariffs. Many say the Trump administration went beyond its legal powers. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in soon. Until then, the debate over executive power and trade rules continues to grow louder.
By tradition and law, Congress has control over trade policy. It uses Trade committees to decide the country’s trade rules. However, Trump’s team used national emergency powers to skip this process. This allowed the president to impose tariffs without Congressional approval. Courts are now saying that this move may not be allowed under the Constitution. Many legal experts argue that emergency powers can only be used in very limited situations. They note that only a few past presidents, such as Richard Nixon, used such powers—and only in extreme cases. Trump’s use of tariffs against many countries, including allies like the United Kingdom, is seen as going too far.
The courts also rejected many of the reasons used by the Trump administration to justify the tariffs. For example, officials tied tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China to the issue of fentanyl trafficking. But judges said that the link was too weak. They also said that the administration did not meet the legal standard needed to use tariffs as a way to gain power in trade talks. These rulings weaken the idea that the tariffs are meant to protect national interests. They also hurt the administration’s story that tariffs are just tools to get better deals.
California’s lawsuit, led by Governor Gavin Newsom, is gaining strength thanks to these rulings. Newsom says the tariffs are hurting workers, raising prices, and harming businesses. Other states may follow California’s lead. Around the world, countries like Japan and members of the European Union have become more cautious. They see the sudden rise and fall of U.S. tariffs as a sign of instability, and that makes trade talks harder. These countries are now unsure how much they can trust the U.S. when making deals.
The real damage from the tariffs is being felt by American businesses. MicroKits, a small company in Virginia, says it’s paying much more for the parts it needs. VOS, a wine distributor in New York, reports that tariffs are putting them at risk of going out of business. Terry Cycling says it has already paid large tariffs and expects more in the future. The courts took these harms seriously. In their ruling, judges said the government failed to respond to proof that companies are suffering.
This growing economic pain has led to more political resistance. Members of Congress are hearing from people in their states who are losing money or jobs. Industries like motorcycles, denim, and bourbon are seeing big cost increases. These changes have turned voters and business owners against the tariffs. Foreign governments have noticed this and are now trying to influence Congress directly. They’re focusing their efforts on districts where companies are being hurt the most.
As the legal fight continues, the Trump team may try a new approach. Experts say they might use Section 232 of trade law. This rule allows tariffs for national security reasons. But it only works for certain products, like cars or steel. It would not support broad tariffs on many goods from many countries. Even if they try this, the administration would still need to show that imports are a real threat to U.S. safety.
These legal defeats mark a turning point in Trump’s trade strategy. The courts are asking hard questions about how much power one person should have over trade. If the Supreme Court agrees that the administration went too far, it could set new limits on presidential power in this area. If the Court supports the administration, Trump may still have to adjust his approach to survive growing public and political pressure.
For now, the future of U.S. trade policy is unclear. Trade talks have slowed. Other countries are waiting to see what happens next. The White House wants to move forward with its plan, but it faces strong legal, political, and public resistance. The final decision could reshape not just tariffs but also the balance of power between the White House and Congress when it comes to trade.