The recent appeals court ruling on Donald Trump’s tariffs tells a tale of two laws, carefully separating the levies it deemed illegal from others that remain legally intact. This distinction is crucial for understanding the precise impact of the decision and the complex legal landscape of U.S. trade policy.
The court’s decision was aimed squarely at tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). It ruled this was an unlawful use of the 1977 act, which was intended for national security sanctions, not for setting broad import duties based on trade deficits.
In contrast, the ruling explicitly does not apply to tariffs imposed under other laws, most notably Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. This law, which allows for tariffs on goods deemed a threat to national security, is the legal basis for the ongoing duties on steel and aluminum. While those tariffs have their own controversies and legal challenges, they were not part of this case and are unaffected by its outcome.
This legal nuance means that while a major part of the Trump-era tariff structure is now at risk, another significant portion remains firmly in place. It highlights that the legality of a tariff depends entirely on the specific authority Congress has granted to the president, a distinction the court went to great lengths to emphasize.