A federal trade court in Manhattan blocks President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling he exceeded his authority under emergency powers. The decision reinforces Congress’s exclusive role in regulating international commerce.

Related:

Trump Threatens EU with 50 Percent Tariffs: A Blow to Workers on Both Sides of the Atlantic

In a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade agenda, a panel of three federal judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ruled Wednesday to block the implementation of the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. These tariffs, announced in April 2025, sought to impose sweeping duties on imports from over 180 countries, justified by Trump as a response to persistent U.S. trade deficits.

The court’s unanimous decision emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, a power that cannot be overridden by the president’s invocation of emergency economic powers.

The judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, cited by Trump to justify the tariffs, does not grant the president the broad authority to impose such extensive and sweeping duties.

The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses adversely affected by the tariffs, as well as a coalition of 13 states. The court declared the tariffs “unlawful as to all,” permanently vacating and halting their enforcement.

US Court of International Trade tules that Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are illegal and therefore blocked by injunction. pic.twitter.com/j5sr7yBhb0

— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) May 28, 2025

Trump’s Tariffs: A Disruptive Policy Overturned

President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs had sent shockwaves through global markets, raising duties on imports from major trading partners including China, Mexico, and Canada. The president framed the tariffs as a necessary measure to address what he described as a national emergency caused by decades-long trade deficits.

However, the court rejected this rationale, pointing out that the U.S. has run a trade deficit for 49 consecutive years, which does not meet the legal threshold of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” required to declare an emergency under the IEEPA. The judges clarified that the president’s emergency powers do not extend to unilateral trade policy decisions of this scale.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of presidential power in shaping U.S. trade policy. It challenges the executive branch’s attempts to bypass Congress, reinforcing the constitutional balance of powers.

While the Trump administration has indicated plans to appeal, the decision underscores growing judicial scrutiny of unilateral economic actions taken without legislative approval. Critics of the tariffs, including the affected small businesses and state governments, hailed the ruling as a victory for legal accountability and economic stability.

The decision serves as a reminder that sustainable trade strategies require democratic oversight and cannot rely on executive fiat, especially when impacting millions of workers, consumers, and businesses across the nation.

IN THIS ARTICLE