A US trade court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump’s planned tariffs, ruling that he exceeded his authority by imposing broad duties on imports from countries with trade surpluses over the US.

The Court of International Trade in Manhattan determined that the US Constitution grants Congress sole authority to regulate foreign commerce, a power not overridden by the president’s emergency economic powers.

"The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of Trump's use of tariffs as leverage. That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it," the three-judge panel wrote.

In response, the Trump administration filed an appeal.

"Notice is hereby given that defendants appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Court's opinion and final judgment of May 28, 2025," the court filing said.

Legal challenges from states and businesses

The court's decision stems from two lawsuits: one brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that rely on imports from the affected countries, and another filed by 13 US states.

The companies, ranging from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, argued that the tariffs would seriously harm their operations.

Related News

Obama rejects DNI claims on Russia probe as Trump demands prosecution

Iran judiciary chief: 2,000 people detained following Israeli attack

The White House and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and key policy advisor to Trump, criticized the ruling in a brief social media post, calling it a sign that "The judicial coup is out of control."

Meanwhile, at least five additional legal challenges to the tariffs remain active.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat leading the states’ lawsuit, denounced the tariffs as unlawful, reckless, and economically harmful. "This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim," Rayfield explained.

Trump cites emergency powers under IEEPA

Trump has argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives him broad authority to impose tariffs, citing it as a tool to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies.

The law in question, traditionally used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of US adversaries, had never before been invoked to impose tariffs until President Trump did so.

In defense of the tariffs, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed, claiming the plaintiffs haven’t suffered harm since they haven't yet paid the tariffs, and contending that only Congress, not private businesses, has the authority to challenge a national emergency declared under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trump declared the US trade deficit a national emergency in early April, justifying a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports, with even steeper rates for countries like China, where trade deficits are largest.

However, many of these country-specific tariffs were paused within a week. On May 12, the Trump administration announced a temporary reduction of the most severe tariffs on Chinese goods while negotiating a broader trade agreement, with both nations agreeing to suspend additional tariffs for at least 90 days.

Trump’s unpredictable tariff policies, framed as a strategy to revitalize US manufacturing, have rattled financial markets, even as the US dollar climbed in response to the court’s ruling, gaining ground against traditional safe-haven currencies like the Swiss franc and Japanese yen.