The Daily Populous Saturday August 30th, 2025 morning edition
Authored by abcnews.go.com and submitted by CupidStunt13

The tariffs remain in effect as the Trump administration is expected to appeal.

President Donald Trump attends a cabinet meeting with members of his administration in the Cabinet Room of the White House, August 26, 2025 in Washington.

A federal appeals court has ruled that most of President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs are unlawful, potentially dealing a significant blow to the president's effort to reshape the country's trade policy unilaterally.

In a 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump's authority to carry out most of his tariffs, agreeing with the lower court that Trump's actions were "invalid as contrary to law." However, the court delayed the impact of its decision through mid-October to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court, as the tariffs remain in effect.

President Donald Trump attends a cabinet meeting with members of his administration in the Cabinet Room of the White House, August 26, 2025 in Washington. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

"Because we agree that [International Emergency Economic Powers Act's] grant of presidential authority to 'regulate' imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm," the majority wrote.

The decision in effect tees up one of the most consequential legal questions for the Supreme Court about the scope of the president's authority on trade policy.

After Oct. 14, the court will return the case to the lower court to decide how the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting nationwide injunctions affects the decision.

In a post on his social media platform Friday evening, Trump rebuked the appeals court's decision, warning that a court order blocking the tariffs "would literally destroy the United States of America."

Previewing the legal challenge expected in the coming weeks, Trump called on the Supreme Court to rule that he has the power to impose tariffs unilaterally.

"Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter," Trump wrote.

In its decision Friday, the appeals court determined that only Congress, not the president alone, has the authority to impose tariffs, setting up a high-profile legal question for the Supreme Court regarding the scope of the president's power.

The decision centers on whether the authority to "regulate" imports, included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, means the president can issue tariffs on his own.

Seven of the 11 judges said that the rarely used law does not give Trump the power to implement either his "reciprocal" tariffs or the "trafficking" tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China aimed at stopping the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders, writing that "tariffs are a core Congressional power."

"We discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs," the majority wrote. "Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term 'regulate . . . importation.'"

A subset of four judges from the majority took the decision even further, determining that IEEPA does not give Trump the power to issue any tariffs, not just the two types of tariffs in question.

"The Government's interpretation of IEEPA would be a functionally limitless delegation of Congressional taxation authority," they wrote.

In a minority opinion, four other judges disagreed, suggesting Trump's declaration of a national emergency is enough of an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to justify the tariffs.

"IEEPA's language, as confirmed by its history, authorizes tariffs to regulate importation," the judges wrote.

A group of small businesses and a coalition of states sued to block the tariffs earlier this year, arguing that President Trump had overstepped his authority under the rarely used International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he issued a flurry of tariffs in April.

The following month, the New York-based Court of International Trade declared the tariffs were unlawful and encroached on Congress's authority to regulate trade. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision, which was stayed as the legal process played out.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on the tariffs in July, during which time the panel of judges appeared skeptical that Trump could justify the tariffs based on a national emergency.

The judges noted that the text of the IEEPA never explicitly mentions "tariffs" and that no other president has attempted to utilize the law in the same manner as Trump has.

"One of the major concerns I have is that IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs anywhere," one judge remarked during the arguments in June. "Here, IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs -- doesn't even mention it."

Ahead of Friday's decision, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer preemptively asked the court to stay their decision to prevent "serious harms" to ongoing negotiations and the country's trade policy.

Trump administration officials had previously warned that losing the ability to issue tariffs would "lead to dangerous diplomatic embarrassment," threaten ongoing negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and "threaten broader U.S. strategic interests at home and abroad."

dub-fresh on August 29th, 2025 at 23:58 UTC »

Two courts have seen them as illegal. Is there any chance the SC sees it differently?

fxkatt on August 29th, 2025 at 23:57 UTC »

> In a post on his social media platform Friday evening, Trump rebuked the appeals court's decision, warning that a court order blocking the tariffs "would literally destroy the United States of America."

Talk about an overwrought response.

Bannedwith1milKarma on August 29th, 2025 at 23:51 UTC »

OK, where's the mechanism to reverse them then?