Trump tariffs blocked by Court of International Trade: What happens next?

In a significant legal development, the U.S. Court of International Trade has struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs, marking a serious challenge to his istration's trade policy legacy.

The decision halts a set of tariffs the Republican politician had unilaterally imposed in April to address alleged international trade imbalances and drug trafficking concerns.

A three-judge concluded that Trump had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) - a statute enacted in 1977 to empower presidents during international crises.

The court determined that the broad-based import tariffs did not address the specific threats cited in the orders and therefore were outside the scope of powers granted under the law.

"The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs," the judges wrote in their opinion.

Additionally, the court stated that tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico, and China, justified by Trump on the basis of combating drug trafficking, "fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders."

The decision not only halts the current tariffs but also prohibits any future modifications related to them. The istration has been given 10 days to comply with the order before consequences can be considered.

Why did Trump impose tariffs?

Trump's controversial trade move in April 2025 involved imposing new tariffs on a wide range of imports, with rates spanning from 11% to 84%, although a 90-day pause was introduced shortly after the announcement.

The istration had cited foreign countries' failure to address drug trafficking as the emergency justification for invoking IEEPA.

However, the court found no reasonable connection between this stated emergency and the imposition of import duties on otherwise legal trade goods. In short, the use of tariffs to counteract drug smuggling lacked a direct causal link.

The ruling immediately triggered a response from the istration, which has already filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Observers note that the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, raising questions about the limits of presidential authority in economic matters.

Critics welcome the ruling. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, one of the plaintiffs, said the decision was "a victory not just for Oregon, but for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans."

Trade law expert Jack Slagle emphasized the broader implications: "This is a significant setback for the istration, which has leaned heavily on IEEPA to impose tariffs at will against China, Mexico, Canada, and everywhere else."

Though the istration has appealed the ruling, the immediate future of the tariff orders remains uncertain. Tariffs on specific goods, such as aluminum and steel, are not affected by this decision.