Washington, May 29, 2025 – A federal court in New York delivered a serious legal setback to President Donald Trump on Wednesday: His attempt to impose sweeping tariffs on global imports by invoking the 1977 emergency powers law was ruled unlawful by the Court of International Trade.
Background: The IEEPA
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), enacted in 1977, allows the president to take certain economic measures in response to extraordinary foreign threats - such as freezing assets or imposing sanctions. However, the use of tariffs - especially during peacetime and without an acute threat - has long been legally controversial.
In a much-anticipated ruling, a three-judge panel - composed of Jane A. Restani, Joseph A. Laroski Jr., and Lisa W. Wang - declared that Trump’s so-called “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders” clearly exceed the legal powers granted to the president.
The court’s key sentence: “The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the president under IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.”
IEEPA - the “International Emergency Economic Powers Act” - is a law from 1977 that allows the president to intervene in economic matters during a crisis, under specific conditions. But the court made clear: tariffs are not among them.
A Legal Breach - Blocked
Trump had attempted to implement a wide range of punitive tariffs without prior congressional approval - often arguing that the US trade deficit represented a “national emergency.” His administration claimed that IEEPA allowed the president to respond to economic threats with broad trade restrictions.
But the plaintiffs - a coalition of small and mid-sized businesses, led by wine importer V.O.S. Selections, along with twelve US states led by Oregon - saw this as a dangerous precedent.
“This ruling confirms that laws matter - and that trade decisions cannot be made based on a president’s emotional state,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield after the decision.
The ruling is especially significant because Trump’s attorneys had relied on the 1971 Nixon precedent - when a court had approved emergency executive action to protect the US economy. But the current panel - led by veteran trade judge Jane A. Restani, along with Joseph A. Laroski Jr., a former Commerce Department official, and Lisa W. Wang, an expert in trade enforcement - strongly rejected this interpretation.
In their reasoning, the judges stated clearly that the law only applies in cases of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” - and a trade deficit, which the US has run for nearly half a century, does not meet that threshold.
Trump had previously imposed tariffs on countries including China, Canada, and Mexico - sometimes citing immigration, drug trafficking, or national security. His so-called “Liberation Day Tariff” was particularly controversial, shaking markets and triggering sharp losses on Wall Street.
A President Versus Reality
Economically, Trump’s tariffs - despite grand rhetoric - have achieved little. The trade deficit has not been meaningfully reduced, nor has there been a significant reshoring of manufacturing. On the contrary, many industries have reported rising prices, production losses, and layoffs. V.O.S. Selections, the lead plaintiff, stated publicly that the company is facing economic ruin due to the tariffs.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the trade deficit poses a “national danger” warranting emergency economic powers. His spokespeople insisted that “only Congress, not the courts,” can determine whether such an emergency exists. The Trump administration has announced it will appeal.
But for now, one thing is clear: The economic unilateralism of a president has its limits - at least in the courts.
English 
German 
