Federal appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign trading partners under an unprecedented use of emergency powers.
Several judges of the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly wondered how Trump could justify the broad tariffs using a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, that presidents have used to set economic sanctions and other penalties on foreign countries — but never previously tariffs.
“IEEPA doesn’t mention the word tariffs anywhere,” Judge Jimmie Reyna, an Obama appointee, said, calling that omission a major concern for him.
Judge Timothy Dyk, a Clinton appointee, said “it was hard for me to see” that Congress intended to give the president the authority to essentially rewrite the entire U.S. code when it passed the legislation.
The appeals court heard nearly two hours of oral arguments on a pair of lawsuits, each challenging tariffs imposed by Trump in a series of executive orders he signed between February and April. One case was brought by private companies; the other was brought by 11 Democratic-controlled states.
Some of the judges noted that large swaths of the nation’s complex and longstanding trade procedures would essentially become superfluous if the president could simply declare an emergency without review by courts — as the Trump administration contends — and impose tariffs of any size and duration. They also emphasized that tariffs imposed by President Richard Nixon under an older emergency power only survived legal challenges because they were targeted at a narrow problem and had a clear expiration date.
The New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump had exceeded his authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs and ordered them to be vacated. The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the Federal Circuit, which allowed the government to continue collecting the duties while the case proceeds. The appeals court set a rapid-fire schedule to consider the matter in front of the court’s full 11-member bench, which is made up of eight Democratic appointees, three Republican appointees and no Trump appointees.
The lawsuit is expected to end up at the Supreme Court.
Trump has used IEEPA to impose two primary sets of tariffs: one aimed at pressuring China, Canada and Mexico to stop the flow of fentanyl and precursor chemicals into the United States and another aimed at reducing the large U.S. trade deficit. Trump initially imposed his “reciprocal” tariffs aimed at reducing the trade deficit in early April, but then paused the majority of them until Aug. 1. He has, however, kept in place a 10-percent “baseline” tariff on all goods since April 5.
In recent weeks and months, Trump has negotiated a series of trade deals with countries, including the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Japan and the 27-nation European Union that have resulted in lower tariff rates than he announced in April. But he still plans to raise duties on those countries to between 15 and 20 percent beginning Friday, using IEEPA authorities.
Trump’s justification for the emergency tariffs is the nation’s longstanding and persistent trade deficits with foreign trading partners, which he says have become so acute they now threaten military readiness and America’s manufacturing capacity. He has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on Brazil, citing that country’s trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a former Trump ally, and free speech concerns, which the White House claims amounts to an emergency.
Both the states and the private companies argue the trade deficit is neither an “unusual or extraordinary” threat nor an “emergency,” since the United States has had one for decades. Both conditions are required under IEEPA for Trump to take action. The Justice Department disagrees, saying the trade deficit has been “exploding” in recent years, rising from $559 billion in 2019 to $903 billion in 2024.
Despite the court’s skepticism about Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, some judges suggested they might agree with Trump’s description of America’s trade deficit as an emergency. They said his executive order authorizing the tariffs described legitimate concerns about the effects of the deficit.
As the lawsuit has been pending, Trump has continued using his claimed tariff authority as leverage to negotiate trade deals with foreign partners and punish governments he says are acting counter to American interests. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate told the judges that Trump’s use of the tariffs as a bargaining chip was an important aspect of his effort to deal with the emergency he described. Shumate cited the recently negotiated deal with the European Union as an example.
Even as Thursday’s hearing was underway, Trump announced he had reached an agreement with Mexico to forestall steeper tariffs amid complex negotiations about a long-term trade deal.
