A Federal Court of Appeals is temporarily delaying Wednesday’s court order that blocks the tariffs of President Donald Trump, restoring them at least for the moment.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative suspension of the decision while considering Trump’s appeal.
On Thursday, the Administration urged the International Trade Court based in New York to delay its order, warning that the application of the ruling will cause a “scenario of foreign policy disasters.”
In an opinion on Wednesday, the three judges panel attacked Trump’s world tariffs as “contrary to the law.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a ceremony at the ceremony for the interim prosecutor of the United States for Washington, DC Jeanine Pirro, in the Oval Office of the White House, on May 28, 2025 in Washington.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The judges discovered that the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers, which Trump used to promulgate his tariffs, does not give him the “unlimited” power to impose rates such as the president in recent months.
“The affirmation of the president of the authority to make rates in the case of the moment, unlimited that it is for any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under Ieepa. The world and retaliation tariffs are, therefore, ultra vires and contrary to the law,” the judges write.
According to the judges, the Congress, not the president, has the authority to impose tariffs in most circumstances, and Trump’s tariffs do not comply with the limited condition of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act alone.
On Thursday, a second federal court determined that Trump’s global were “illegal.”
The United States District Judge, Rudolph Contreras, said in an order that the International Economic Emergency Emergency Powers does not give the President the power to impose most of his recent tariffs.
In particular, the decision of Contreras, a designated by Obama, only restricts the ability of the Trump administration to collect tariffs of the two companies that filed the demand, Learning Resources, Inc. and Hand2mind, Inc.
The Department of Justice requested on Thursday a stay to the ruling on Wednesday, saying that it is necessary “to avoid immediate irreparable damage to the foreign policy and national security of the United States.”
“It is fundamental, for the national security of the country and the conduct of the president of the ongoing and delicate diplomatic efforts, that the court remains its judgment. The damage to the conduct of the foreign affairs of relief ordered by the court could not be greater,” said the lawyers of the Department of Justice.
According to the administration, the court order would strip the president of leverage in trade negotiations, imposes that trade agreements have already reached and would make the country vulnerable to countries that “feel renewed courage to take advantage of” the current situation.
In response to the ruling, the White House spokesman, Kush Desai, evoked the commercial deficit and said: “It is not for not chosen judges to decide how to adequately address a national emergency,” and added that the administration is committed to using “each lever of executive power to address this crisis.”
The Trump administration had quickly presented an appeal notice to challenge Wednesday’s decision.
The case is now addressed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where they could request a suspension of the order.
The International Trade Court issued the decision in two cases, one presented by a group of small businesses and another presented by 12 democratic general prosecutors.
The attorney general of Nevada, Aaron Ford, described the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and for the pockets of the snowy”.
“I am extremely satisfied with the Court’s decision to tear these rates; both were illegal and economically destructive,” he said. “The president had no legal authority to impose these rates, and his illegal actions would have caused billions of dollars of damage to the US economy.”
Since Trump announced radical tariffs in more than 50 countries in April, his administration has faced half a dozen demands that challenge the president’s ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.
The New York Attorney General, Letitia James, described the decision as a “great victory for our efforts to defend the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten US jobs and economy.”
“The law is clear: no president has the power to increase taxes alone when they wish. These tariffs are a massive tax increase on working families and US companies that would have led to greater inflation, economic damage to companies of all sizes and losses of jobs throughout the country if it is allowed to continue,” James’s statement continued.
The lawyers of the small businesses alleged that the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers, which Trump invoked to impose the rates, does not give the president the right to issue “world tariffs worldwide”, and that Trump’s justification for tariffs was not valid.
“His affirmed emergency is a product of his own imagination,” said the demand. “Commercial deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic damage, are not an emergency.”
During a hearing earlier this month, a group of three judges, who were appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan, pushed a lawyer for small businesses to provide a legal basis to cancel tariffs. While a different court in the 1970s determined that trade with the 1917 enemies law, the law that preceded the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers, gave the President the right to impose rates, no court has weighed if the President can impose unilaterally under the IEEPA.
During a hearing on May 13, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the Conservative Freedom Justice Center that represents the plaintiffs, argued that Trump’s alleged emergency to justify tariffs is well below what is required according to the law.
“I ask this Court to be a referee and call a strike; you ask me, well, where is the Strike area? Is it on the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab argued. “I am saying that it is a wild launch and is on the other side of the batter and hits the top, so we do not need to discuss that.”
The ruling marks the first time a federal court issued a decision on the legality of Trump’s tariffs. In May, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Trump suggested that the president has the authority to impose tariffs unilaterally, but chose to transfer the case to the International Trade Court.
-ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
