NEW YORK—In scathing language, a three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade ruled President Donald Trump’s across-the-board tariffs on every import from every foreign country are unconstitutional. The executive orders he issued imposing them were “declared to be invalid” and “contrary to the law.” The ruling is scheduled to take effect in 10 days.
Trump, the judges said, “exceeded his authority” in declaring the sweeping taxes on U.S. importers, which start at 10% on all products and rise steeply when directed at items from China, Mexico, and Canada. They added that Congress, not the president, has ultimate authority over trade.
The court was not asked to rule on the tariffs targeting specific items, in particular cars and steel from Mexico and Canada.
Trade court Judges Gary Katzmann, a Barack Obama appointee, Timothy Reif, whom Trump put on the bench, and Jane Restani, nominated by GOP President Ronald Reagan, were scathing in their ruling. The three did not comment on the economic rationality or policy effectiveness of the tariffs, but they repeatedly declared that Trump violated the Constitution in imposing them in a blanket fashion.
“An unlimited delegation of tariff authority” by Congress to the president “would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,” the judges wrote.
Melinda St. Louis, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, cheered the decision and called out Trump’s tariffs for what they really are.
“Trump abused sweeping, unstrategic tariffs as part of a corrupt, authoritarian power grab to bully foreign countries and force U.S. companies to bend the knee to him and his billionaire friends,” St. Louis said. “We welcome the court’s decision striking down Trump’s misuse of tariffs.”
Trump justified his tariffs by declaring a “national economic emergency,” using his frequent claim that other nations are “ripping the U.S. off” and “cheating” on international trade. Such arguments run up against the reality that the U.S. is the most dominant economy in the world and coerced other countries into the same free trade agreements Trump critiques as unfair to the U.S.
As part of his emergency justification, Trump also alleges that both Canada and Mexico are not doing enough to stop the smuggling of fentanyl into the U.S.
The judges said Trump does not have the power he claims to possess under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and that another statute he cited to justify imposing the tariffs can only be used to directly attack the problem it discusses. That law “may not be used for any other purpose,” the judges declared.
“Mere incantation of ‘national emergency’ cannot, of course, sound the death-knell of the Constitution. Declaration of a national emergency is not a talisman enabling the president to rewrite the tariff schedules,” they wrote.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who led a dozen Attorneys General in one of the two suits filed against Trump, cited the Constitution, but also emphasized the harm Trump’s tariffs would inflict on consumers and on his state, which runs an export surplus that benefits its economy.
“The court’s ruling is a victory not just for Oregon, but for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans,” said Rayfield. “Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. They triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses, and manufacturers.”
Small businesses were among those who filed a separate case against the tariffs, alleging the blanket import taxes were driving them to bankruptcy.
Rayfield said he brought the case “because the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy. This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim.”
Other Attorneys General who joined Oregon’s suit also welcomed the ruling. They include New York’s Letitia James and Illinois Democrat Kwame Raoul.
“The law is clear: No president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like,” said James, deftly making the point that tariffs are really taxes consumers will pay, as corporations use them as an excuse to raise prices.
“These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue. This decision is a major victory for our efforts to uphold the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten American jobs and economy,” James added.
“Our states’ economies rely on international trade, particularly in Illinois, where agriculture is a top industry,” said Raoul. “The administration’s arbitrary tariffs will impose higher prices on goods our producers and residents rely on and result in unnecessary economic chaos. I am committed to continuing to partner with my colleagues to prevent hardworking Americans from footing the bill for the administration’s unlawful tariffs.”
Trump White House spokesman Kush Denai sneered his boss might defy the judges—just as Trump has in immigration cases. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Denai said.
In prior comments, both AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, a week before the May 28 court decision, and the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute took a more detailed view of the tariffs. Both said import taxes cannot be used as a blunt instrument.
“A tariff alone cannot grow jobs long-term without investments,” Shuler told a symposium on international affairs the week before. “This administration has not said anything about making investments in critical industries like steel and auto…. Creating these tariffs without making the right investments and choices here at home is like putting the car in neutral, then stepping on the gas.”
But Shuler did not endorse the Wall Street and corporate model of “free trade,” which has cost the U.S. jobs, harmed workers, and left communities nationwide, especially in the industrial Midwest, deserted by industry and desolate about their futures—all in the name of higher profits for companies.
“I hear far too many people saying tariffs are just a bad idea and we should return to the free trade models of before. I would say in response: Look at what is happening through a political economy lens. Those old free trade models did not address the needs of workers and their communities, and they definitely did not address the needs of our planet,” Shuler said.
“We must continue to ask right now: How do these [trade] policies improve the lives of workers, advance the clean energy transition, and protect our environment?” The Biden administration, Shuler said, used that approach, looking at “distributional impacts of policies on communities impacted by trade, and ensured unions were at the table actively helping to shape the vision with other stakeholders. This was the right start,” unlike Trump’s tariffs which the court overturned.
“Trump is imposing tariffs on essentially all goods imports—more than $3 trillion—after just over two months into his term,” Josh Bivens and Adam Hersh of the Economic Policy Institute wrote when Trump first slammed the world trade system with his across-the-board levies on April 2, Trump’s “Liberation Day.”
“Tariffs can be a legitimate and useful tool in industrial policy for well-defined strategic goals, but broad-based tariffs that significantly raise the average effective tariff rate in the United States are unwise. Further, the second Trump administration’s rationale, parameters, and timeline for tariffs have been ever-shifting.
“Tariffs should not be a goal unto themselves, but a strategic tool to pair with other efforts to restore American competitiveness in narrowly targeted industrial sectors.”
The three judges gave Trump 10 days to halt collection of the tariffs, but the White House said it is appealing the ruling and asking another court to halt enforcement of this latest order until then. The case could eventually go to the Supreme Court, but regardless, Trump is expected to continue pursuing other means to advance his trade war.
We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you!
CONTRIBUTOR
MOST POPULAR TODAY
Workers approve strikes as they escalate battle with Big Grocery
AKEL: Cyprus’ Progressive Party of Working People at forefront of labor and popular struggles
Is Teamsters’ Sean O’Brien Donald Trump’s favorite union leader?
‘I Was Born This Way’ review: The LGBTQ 70s anthem and Black gay archbishop you never knew about