Topline
The U.S.’s international trade court declined late Tuesday to immediately block President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs—at least for now—marking the first ruling on the president’s controversial tariffs as multiple lawsuits allege Trump exceeded his authority by imposing them.
President Donald Trump announces his “Liberation Day” tariffs at the White House on April 2.
Key Facts
A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled not to issue a temporary restraining order against Trump’s tariffs, siding against a coalition of business groups who argued the tariffs should immediately be paused while the litigation gets underway.
Trump has imposed baseline 10% tariffs on most imports from foreign countries, with higher tariffs of at least 145% on many goods from China—which the business groups argued he doesn’t have the legal authority to impose.
The business groups, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, asked the court to urgently block the executive orders Trump used to impose his tariffs, arguing Trump’s tariffs “represent an existential threat to Plaintiffs’ businesses and to thousands of small businesses just like them around the country.”
The Trump administration opposed the request, arguing the tariffs are necessary for the country’s “national security and economic protection” and the business groups’ argument to pause the tariffs is based on “conclusory, speculative statements of future economic harm that they fear will occur … at some unspecified time in the future.”
The three-judge panel ruled against issuing the restraining order, ruling the business groups “have not clearly shown a likelihood” they will suffer “irreparable and immediate harm” if the tariffs aren’t paused immediately.
The Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel Jeffrey Schwab said in a statement late Tuesday the group “respectfully disagree[s]” with the court’s ruling and assertion that the business groups will “not suffer immediate harm,” but argued the plaintiffs “remain confident in the strength of the merits of our case and believe the courts will ultimately enjoin the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.”
What To Watch For
While the U.S. Court of International Trade declined to immediately halt Trump’s tariffs, they’re still deliberating on whether to issue a more lasting ruling that would keep the tariffs on hold until the litigation is resolved. That ruling won’t come until mid-May at the earliest, as the court scheduled a hearing for May 13 to consider the issue.
Chief Critic
Schwab emphasized Tuesday that the tariffs remaining in place continues to harm Liberty Justice Center’s clients who filed the lawsuits, despite the trade court’s argument that it’s not necessary to block the tariffs immediately because they won’t cause the business groups any “irreparable harm.” “As a result of these tariffs, our clients will have to delay imports and pause operations, sales, and expansion, harming their relationships with suppliers and customers, their reputation, and goodwill, and resulting in irreversible lost business opportunities and lost market share to foreign competitors, which threaten our clients’ very existence,” Schwab said.
What We Don’t Know
How other lawsuits challenging Trump’s tariffs will play out. In addition to the lawsuit in the Court of International Trade, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has also challenged Trump’s tariffs in federal court, arguing they harm the state’s economy. The legal group New Civil Liberties Alliance has also brought a lawsuit on behalf of a Florida-based stationery company, which challenges Trump’s earlier tariffs on China that the president imposed prior to his more sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs in April. Both cases remain pending, and the Trump administration is trying to transfer the cases—which were filed in federal court in California and Florida, respectively—to the Court of International Trade.
Why Are Businesses Arguing Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful?
The plaintiffs who have sued Trump over his tariffs—including businesses and the state of California—challenge the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. That law, first enacted in the 1970s, allows presidents to impose some economic sanctions during national emergencies, which the law defines as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the country. The IEEPA does not say anything about tariffs, however, which the plaintiffs argue means Trump doesn’t have any authority to impose tariffs using that law. Groups challenging the tariffs also object to Trump claiming there’s a national emergency that justifies imposing such sweeping tariffs, with the Liberty Justice Center writing in its lawsuit that any national emergency “is a figment of [Trump’s] own imagination,” as “trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency” or an “unusual or extraordinary threat.”
Key Background
Trump announced his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, fulfilling a longtime campaign promise to levy tariffs on foreign imports despite warnings from economists that doing so would raise prices for U.S. consumers and harm the economy. Trump’s tariffs initially varied by country, with some countries receiving tariff rates as high as 50%, but the president ended up backing off the worst of his tariffs hours after they took effect. Trump issued a 90-day pause on most of his tariffs on April 9, keeping a baseline 10% rate in effect—with higher tariffs for China—but pausing other countries’ high tariff rates while his administration negotiates with foreign governments. The president’s tariffs have wreaked havoc in the stock market and led to economic experts warning of a possible recession, though Trump has continued to double down on his tariffs and insist on their necessity. He has argued they’re needed in order to restore manufacturing to the U.S. and fix perceived trade imbalances with other countries, though Trump claimed Tuesday the 145% tariff rate with China will come down “substantially.”
Further Reading