Washington, May 29, 2025 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Background: The IEEPA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019s so-called \u201cWorldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders\u201d clearly exceed the legal powers granted to the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court\u2019s key sentence: \u201cThe worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the president under IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
IEEPA - the \u201cInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act\u201d - 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Legal Breach - Blocked<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump had attempted to implement a wide range of punitive tariffs without prior congressional approval - often arguing that the US trade deficit represented a \u201cnational emergency.\u201d His administration claimed that IEEPA allowed the president to respond to economic threats with broad trade restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis ruling confirms that laws matter - and that trade decisions cannot be made based on a president\u2019s emotional state,\u201d said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield after the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ruling is especially significant because Trump\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In their reasoning, the judges stated clearly that the law only applies in cases of an \u201cunusual and extraordinary threat\u201d - and a trade deficit, which the US has run for nearly half a century, does not meet that threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump had previously imposed tariffs on countries including China, Canada, and Mexico - sometimes citing immigration, drug trafficking, or national security. His so-called \u201cLiberation Day Tariff\u201d was particularly controversial, shaking markets and triggering sharp losses on Wall Street.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A President Versus Reality<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Economically, Trump\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the trade deficit poses a \u201cnational danger\u201d warranting emergency economic powers. His spokespeople insisted that \u201conly Congress, not the courts,\u201d can determine whether such an emergency exists. The Trump administration has announced it will appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But for now, one thing is clear: The economic unilateralism of a president has its limits - at least in the courts.<\/p>\n
Washington, 29. Mai 2025 \u2013 Ein Bundesgericht in New York hat Pr\u00e4sident Donald Trump am Mittwoch eine empfindliche juristische Niederlage zugef\u00fcgt: Der Versuch, unter Berufung auf das Notstandsgesetz von 1977 weitreichende Z\u00f6lle auf globale Importe zu verh\u00e4ngen, wurde vom Court of International Trade als rechtswidrig eingestuft. Hintergrund: Das IEEPA Das 1977 verabschiedete International Emergency Economic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1995,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[50,47,49,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-rights-living","category-us-business","category-state-news","category-topstory"],"yoast_head":"\n