Court Temporarily Backs Trump on Tariffs Amid Legal Storm Over Presidential Power

[Social Media]

 

Court Temporarily Backs Trump on Tariffs Amid Legal Storm Over Presidential Power

 

President Donald Trump has won a temporary legal reprieve in his effort to maintain sweeping global tariffs, as a U.S. federal appeals court allowed the continuation of his import duties, despite a lower court’s ruling that they were unlawful. The decision came just one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing broad international tariffs.

 

The appeals court’s decision temporarily suspends the lower court’s order and allows the tariffs to remain in effect while the broader legal battle plays out. Trump officials quickly condemned the initial ruling as an overreach by the judiciary. "America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges," said White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt in a press briefing on Thursday.

 

The tariffs, which have caused global economic disruptions since their introduction earlier this year, were challenged by small businesses and several U.S. states. The Trump administration has defended them as crucial tools in its economic and foreign policy strategies. In court filings, the administration argued that the lower court ruling undermined presidential authority and jeopardized progress made in trade negotiations. “The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy,” the filing stated, even threatening to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.

 

In February, President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing the fentanyl crisis as justification. He later expanded the measures to include a 10% tariff on goods from most nations, reserving higher tariffs for select trade partners like China and the European Union, which the administration labeled “bad actors.”

 

Critics argue that Trump stretched the IEEPA far beyond its intended use, which traditionally covers sanctions against nations like Iran, not general trade and tax policy—areas typically reserved for Congress. “It’s not normal for the president of the United States to make such an enormous power grab and start the biggest trade war since the Great Depression,” said Ilya Somin, a lawyer who assisted in the case against the administration. He remains “guardedly optimistic” that the court’s ruling will ultimately be upheld, noting that the decision was issued by judges from across the political spectrum, including a Trump appointee.

 

However, trade adviser Peter Navarro signaled the administration's willingness to continue its tariff push regardless of the legal outcome. “You can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way,” he said, stressing that the trade court’s ruling only addressed the emergency law Trump used and not the idea of tariffs themselves. Other duties on steel, aluminium, and automobiles—imposed under different laws—remain unaffected.

 

While the next hearing in the case is set for June 5, many in the business community remain wary. Kara Dyer, who runs Boston-based Story Time Toys and imports products from China, expressed mixed feelings about the appeals court’s decision. “I was incredibly happy and relieved but I'm also still very cautious,” she said. “It’s just been so chaotic and so impossible to plan as a business. I want this to work its way through our court system so we have a little bit more certainty about what tariffs will be in the future.”

 

Observers say the legal tug-of-war has broader implications for presidential power. “It will be a lot harder for him to raise tariffs in the future,” said Dmitry Grozoubinski, a former trade negotiator at the World Trade Organization. “This was ultimately a negotiation in which President Trump was threatening other countries with a big stick and that stick just got considerably more ephemeral.”

 

While the temporary stay allows the Trump administration to keep the tariffs in place for now, the final outcome could reshape the future balance between executive authority and the role of Congress and courts in trade policy.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC  2025-05-30

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

15 minutes ago, Social Media said:

"America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges," said White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt in a press briefing on Thursday.

And of the 3 judges on the 'activist' CIT court 1 was appointed by first term Mr. Trump and another by President Reagan.

[SLOWHAND225]

If you didn't know that this would be part of the process then you're an idiot.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

And of the 3 judges on the 'activist' CIT court 1 was appointed by first term Mr. Trump and another by President Reagan.

Moreover, the original court ruling is stuffed full of legal precedents and SCOTUS case rulings that demonstrate the President is overstepping his authority. 

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

 

41 minutes ago, SLOWHAND225 said:

If you didn't know that this would be part of the process then you're an idiot.

Ms. Karoline Leavitt isn't an idiot just that her job requires her to sound like one.

[FolkGuitar]

All part of the plan. Nothing is happening that is unexpected, and all designed to:

1. Remove as much money as possible from the American people.

2. Destabilize the American government.

Musk realized that he's gotten as much as he's able, now with hundreds of millions in new business contracts, so he's gone. I wonder who the next favored player will be? Perhaps one of the folks who attended the $1,000,000 a plate dinner Krasnov hosted? 
(Corruption has never been so blatant before 47.)

 

Both goals seem to be well underway.

[JAG]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Ms. Karoline Leavitt isn't an idiot just that her job requires her to sound like one.

Mind you, she brings great conviction to the role!

[JonnyF]

Activist judges undermining the President's negotiations and damaging the country at the same time.

 

Shameful. 

[Tug]

When trump loses this appeal all the tariffs money collected has to be repaid with interest to those companies and consumers affected.thats in writing,it was the only way to get the stay approved.

[Eric Loh]

45 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Activist judges undermining the President's negotiations and damaging the country at the same time.

 

Shameful. 

The country is already damaged under this reckless tariff war. 

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The country is already damaged under this reckless tariff war. 

 

Let's just forget democratic elections and let the judges run the country then. 

 

Trump told everyone about his plan for the tariffs before the election, and the people elected him on that basis.

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Let's just forget democratic elections and let the judges run the country then. 

 

Trump told everyone about his plan for the tariffs before the election, and the people elected him on that basis.

You have to wait for Trump to be the self anointed King. Meanwhile he has to abide under the constitution  separation of power which is perfectly designed for this lawless President and prevent him to  grab power arbitarily. 

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Meanwhile he has to abide under the constitution  separation of power which is perfectly designed for this lawless President and prevent him to  grab power arbitarily. 

 

Grab power arbitrarily, through free and fair Democratic elections. 😆

[jerrymahoney]

Trump administration considers allowing tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, WSJ reports
By Reuters
May 30, 20258:23 AM GMT+7Updated 2 hours ago

 

May 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration is considering a stopgap effort to impose tariffs on large parts of the global economy under an existing law that includes language allowing for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The administration has not made a final decision and it could wait to impose any plans after a federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of Trump's tariffs following a trade court ruling to immediately block them, the report added.
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-considers-allowing-tariffs-up-15-150-days-wsj-reports-2025-05-30/

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump administration considers allowing tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, WSJ reports
By Reuters
May 30, 20258:23 AM GMT+7Updated 2 hours ago

 

May 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration is considering a stopgap effort to impose tariffs on large parts of the global economy under an existing law that includes language allowing for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The administration has not made a final decision and it could wait to impose any plans after a federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of Trump's tariffs following a trade court ruling to immediately block them, the report added.
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-considers-allowing-tariffs-up-15-150-days-wsj-reports-2025-05-30/

 

Trump's team is fantically look for some form of legal wriggle to salvage the hugh embarrassment and loss of face if Trump's flagship tarriff war is sunked by the court. Just look bad on his administration planning or lack of planning process. Will aggravate the trade uncertainty, wreck the economy and sapped dollar strength. 

[jerrymahoney]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Ms. Karoline Leavitt isn't an idiot just that her job requires her to sound like one.

You rang?

 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, though, opened her briefing with a lengthy attack on the legal setbacks. She called it "judicial overreach" and called on the nation's highest court to step in.

 

"These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage," Leavitt said. "The administration has already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay to strike down this egregious decision. But ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country." (my bold) <SKIP> 

 

Leavitt criticized the panel as "activist judges" despite its three members being appointed to the bench by three different presidents: Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-slams-judges-ruled-trump-tariffs/story?id=122320787

[Yagoda]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Moreover, the original court ruling is stuffed full of legal precedents and SCOTUS case rulings that demonstrate the President is overstepping his authority. 

 

 

Have you read it?

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

When trump loses this appeal all the tariffs money collected has to be repaid with interest to those companies and consumers affected.thats in writing,it was the only way to get the stay approved.

Hmm, it's a committment regarding a debt; given Mr Trump's record on those over the decades we can I imagine safely conclude that it will not be honoured.

[connda]

Tariffs aren't going to work and all they will do is screw up supply chains are cause trade wars.  

[connda]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Let's just forget democratic elections and let the judges run the country then. 

 

Trump told everyone about his plan for the tariffs before the election, and the people elected him on that basis.

I didn't vote for him or Harris.  I thought tariffs are a a bad idea.  However?  The power of the judiciary is excessive where every tin-pot judge thinks they have the right to throw a spanner into the the administration's orders.  On the flip side of that, I'm not a fan of "Rule By Executive Order" either.  It sort of p***es me off that Congress just lies on its back and flops like a freshly caught fish.  But then again, Congress is so partisan now that nothing gets accomplished.  

Bottom line?  The US political system is FUBAR'ed.  

[jerrymahoney]

Per the tariff dustup ... or per the Gershwin song: They Can't Take That Away From Me (1937)
______________
Trump Says Tariffs Are the Most 'Beautiful Words to Me' in the Dictionary
January 21st, 2025, 7:11 AM GMT+0700

President Donald Trump talks about tariffs at the Inauguration Day parade being held in the Capital One Arena.

“I always say tariffs are the most beautiful words to me in the dictionary,” Trump says, adding God, religion and love are actually the first three in that order and then it’s tariffs. (Source: Bloomberg)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-01-21/trump-says-tariffs-are-most-beautiful-word-in-dictionary-video

[Eric Loh]

25 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

You rang?

 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, though, opened her briefing with a lengthy attack on the legal setbacks. She called it "judicial overreach" and called on the nation's highest court to step in.

 

"These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage," Leavitt said. "The administration has already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay to strike down this egregious decision. But ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country." (my bold) <SKIP> 

 

Leavitt criticized the panel as "activist judges" despite its three members being appointed to the bench by three different presidents: Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-slams-judges-ruled-trump-tariffs/story?id=122320787

 

She simply goose stepping in line with his lunatic boss who lashed out at Leonard Leo who was the former leader of the Federalist Society who advised Trump on selecting the cadre of rightwing judges. Trump and Leonard were once close ally but we know Trump who will turn against ally at a dime drop. 

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5325143-trump-goes-after-leonard-leo-in-attack-on-tariff-ruling/

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Activist judges undermining the President's negotiations and damaging the country at the same time.

 

Shameful. 

Yet more ill informed nonsense.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yet more ill informed nonsense.

 

 

Not sure about that

 

The Trump administration has won the right to keep its sweeping global tariffs in place after “activist judges” tried to block them.

https://archive.ph/H1mwp

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/29/stock-markets-surge-after-us-court-blocks-trump-tariffs/

[jerrymahoney]

As mentioning the Pensacola, FL case:

No -- a suit by a right wing conservative legal firm with connection to Leonard Leo who orchestrated the appointment and confirmation of Trump's 3 Supreme Court appointments first term.

jerrymahoney
Posted May 7

https://aseannow.com/topic/1359961-its-already-getting-ugly-in-china/page/2/#comment-19786440

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Have you read it?

 

Yes.

 

Here it is.

 

Feel free to point out errors in my post you replied to:

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf

 

[bendejo]

Now if they just keep pushing it back until December 2028 . . . 

 

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yet more ill informed nonsense.

 

 

 

Not according to the federal appeals court.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93ywvl7yy5o

 

 

[Yagoda]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Yes.

 

Here it is.

 

Feel free to point out errors in my post you replied to:

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf

 

Yes. The Court lacks jurisdiction to quarrel with the Presidents determinations under Article II. I suggest you read the DOJ brief.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Let's just forget democratic elections and let the judges run the country then. 

 

Trump told everyone about his plan for the tariffs before the election, and the people elected him on that basis.

 

There’s a small matter of the Constitution, separation of powers and the rule of law.

Trump promising to do things beyond the power of the Presidency in his election campaign does not give him the power to do things beyond the power of the Presidency.

 

The President has his powers within the  purview of the Presidency and the Courts have theirs.

 

The fact that the particular court is titled ‘Inited States Court of International Trade’ is a clue to what the court’s purview is.

 

I recommend adding the history of the United States Court of International Trade along with the Constitution of the United States to your reading list.

 

If after that you have some spare time, the courts actual  ruling is an informative read.