The White House is acting quickly to preserve President Donald Trump’s trade plan after experiencing a significant legal setback on Wednesday, when a federal court invalidated most of his import duties. On that day, government attorneys sought an urgent suspension from the U.S. Court of International Trade. The following day, they submitted a comparable request to the D.C. Court of Appeals. In their 124-page document, they cautioned that if these courts do not halt the decision, they intend to appeal to the Supreme Court as soon as Friday to maintain the tariffs.
This marks the most significant legal setback of Trump’s second term.
“With no intervention by the [Trade] Court, the United States intends to seek urgent assistance from the Supreme Court tomorrow in order to avoid irreversible damage to national security and the economy,” the document notes. It features comprehensive appendices detailing the administration’s case.
The government claims that enforcing the ruling would unravel several “successful agreements” President Trump has reached with foreign nations. However, no binding trade agreements have been signed under Trump’s second term. His only major moves have been a non-binding agreement with the United Kingdom and a partial rollback of tariffs previously imposed on China.
Rehashing Familiar Debates, Encountering Fresh Opposition
The legal document revisits commonly used points: that courts do not possess the power to question a president’s choice to use emergency authority, and that historical examples—specifically President Nixon’s emergency tariffs—validate Trump’s measures. Nevertheless, the ruling directly tackles that historical example and determines that it, in fact, bolsters the argument opposing Trump’s understanding.
El gobierno advierte que sin una suspensión, “aunque los aranceles sean finalmente confirmados, el daño a los esfuerzos diplomáticos y económicos de EE.UU. podría ser irreversible”. Afirman que las pérdidas de ingresos serían irrecuperables y que las negociaciones internacionales se verían gravemente afectadas.
A Legal Setback for Trump’s Tariff Policy
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that Trump’s broad tariffs violated the Constitution and federal law, asserting that the president exceeded his authority in invoking emergency powers. The decision struck down key tariffs: 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico, 20% on Chinese goods, and the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” applied globally—initially declared during the controversial “Liberation Day” and later reduced to 10% under market pressure.
Political Tempest: Assaults on the Judicial System
Press secretary of the White House, Karoline Leavitt, criticized the decision as an “excess of judicial authority” and argued that it hampers the president’s capacity to negotiate. “The United States will struggle to operate if President Trump—or any president—has sensitive diplomatic and trade initiatives obstructed by activist judges,” she stated.
Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller went further on social media: “We are living under judicial tyranny,” he tweeted Thursday night. “The judicial coup is out of control.”
Kevin Hassett, director del National Economic Council, mentioned to Fox Business
he is confident the ruling will be overturned on appeal. While Trump has legal options to impose new tariffs, Hassett said, “We have no intention to do that right now because we’re very confident this ruling is wrong.” Leavitt, however, repeatedly emphasized that Trump retains those powers, leaving the door open for further action.
The Supreme Court Might Decide
The Supreme Court now has a conservative majority of 6–3, with three of these justices chosen by Trump. Nevertheless, this doesn’t ensure a positive result. The first decision was unanimous, authorized by three judges appointed by Trump, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama, providing the decision with bipartisan credibility.
Senior Cabinet Members Caution About Worldwide Repercussions
In a remarkable development, four members of Trump’s Cabinet provided comments to the Trade Court prior to its decision, cautioning about serious repercussions if the president’s tariff powers were withdrawn.
Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick claimed that the ruling would “weaken” the latest trade talks. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent cautioned that it might “disrupt current negotiations” and lead to counteractions. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer expressed concern that international counterparts might “worsen competitive imbalances” to the detriment of American exporters. Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted that the court mandate would lead to “severe and lasting damage to U.S. diplomatic and national defense interests.”
The government still needs to submit its complete appeal concerning the case’s merits but is using every legal and political strategy to maintain Trump’s tariff system—at least for the time being—in front of the nation’s top court.
