Skip to content

President Can’t Impose Tariffs Under Emergency Powers, Says Appeals Court

Speaking of fake emergencies, the Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that Dictator Trump broke the law in imposing tariffs to address his numerous cooked-up emergencies. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld that ruling, declaring that most of Trump’s tariffs violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:

IEEPA authorizes the President to take certain actions in response to a declared national emergency arising from an “unusual and extraordinary threat[] . . . to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a).…

The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.…

Notably, when drafting IEEPA, Congress did not use the term “tariff” or any of its synonyms, like “duty” or “tax.” There are numerous statutes that do delegate to the President the power to impose tariffs; in each of these statutes that we have identified, Congress has used clear and precise terms to delegate tariff power, reciting the term “duties” or one of its synonyms. In contrast, none of these statutes uses the broad term “regulate” without also separately and explicitly granting the President the authority to impose tariffs. The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ruling, V.O.S. Selections et al. v Trump et al., Case #25-1812, pp. 26–27].

The appeals court did reverse the CIT’s injunction on the tariffs, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14, giving the CIT time to revisit its ruling and giving the dictator time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

One Comment

  1. Creighton University’s Ernie Goss follows the economies of several breadbasket states. He says Mexico remains the top destination for agricultural exports although Colorado is less dependent on that nation according to August numbers but South Dakota sends 77.3% of its ag product exports to America’s southern neighbor. Canada is the top destination for Wyoming’s exported agricultural goods and livestock.

    Rural Mainstreet Economy Falls in Negative Territory
    One-Fifth of Grain Farmers to Experience Negative Cash Flow

    August 2025 Survey Results at-a-Glance:

    • For the sixth time in 2025, the overall regional economic index sank below growth neutral.
    • For the 15th time in the past 16 months, farmland prices sank below growth neutral.
    • Approximately six of ten bank CEOs support a Federal Reserve rate cut at their September meeting. Only 3.7% support a rate cut of more than 25 basis points (¼%).
    • On average, bank CEOs expect one in five grain farmers to experience negative cash flow for 2025.
    • Farm equipment sales dropped below growth neutral for the 24th straight month.

    Overall: The region’s overall reading for August fell to 48.1 after rising above growth neutral to 50.6 in July and 51.9 in June. The index ranges between 0 and 100, with a reading of 50.0 representing growth neutral.

    Confidence: Rural bankers remain pessimistic about economic growth for their area over the next six months. The August confidence index weakened to 27.8 from 36.0 in July. “Weak grain prices and negative farm cash flows, combined with tariff retaliation concerns, pushed banker confidence lower,” said Goss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *