Breaking Down the US Court Ruling on Trump’s Tariffs: Key Takeaways
On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 that most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), are illegal, affirming a May 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The court found that Trump overstepped his authority by using IEEPA, a 1977 law meant for addressing “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies, to impose sweeping tariffs, including a 10% baseline tariff on most countries and higher “reciprocal” tariffs (e.g., 34% on China, 50% on India).
The court stated that IEEPA does not explicitly grant the president power to impose tariffs, a core Congressional authority, and that the tariffs were “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.” This ruling affects tariffs announced on April 2, 2025, dubbed “Liberation Day,” and separate levies on China, Canada, and Mexico justified by trade deficits, fentanyl trafficking, and immigration issues.The decision, stayed until October 14, 2025, to allow a likely appeal to the Supreme Court, stemmed from lawsuits by small businesses and a coalition of 12 U.S. states, arguing the tariffs harmed businesses and consumers.
The court rejected Trump’s claim that trade deficits and other issues constituted emergencies under IEEPA, noting that Congress explicitly delegates tariff authority in other statutes with clear terms. However, tariffs imposed under other laws, like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (e.g., on steel, aluminum, and cars), remain unaffected.
Trump criticized the ruling on Truth Social, calling the court “highly partisan” and warning that removing tariffs would “destroy” the U.S. economy, while White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the tariffs as vital for national and economic security. The administration is exploring alternative legal routes, such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary 15% tariffs for 150 days, or Section 301 for unfair trade practices.
This ruling connects to the Nigerian context, as the U.S. tariffs prompted NIPOST’s $80 duty on U.S.-bound packages, reflecting global trade disruptions caused by Trump’s policies. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, it could ease such burdens, though alternative tariffs may still emerge.
About the Author
