Join 350,000+ subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of
The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
Trump's trade war whipsawed by court rulings
A series of court rulings over Trump's tariffs has rendered the future of US trade policy increasingly uncertain
A federal appeals court Thursday paused a special trade court's nullification of President Donald Trump's signature tariffs, restoring his 10% taxes on all imported goods and higher tariffs on specific countries while the judges consider the merits of Trump's appeal. Adding to the uncertainty over Trump's trade war, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras Thursday blocked those same tariffs for two plaintiffs, calling them "unlawful."
Who said what
Contreras and the U.S. Court of International Trade both said Trump had misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, claiming unilateral powers not authorized under the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's administrative stay "bought time for judges to begin evaluating the legal core" of Trump's arguments, The New York Times said, but the "head-spinning series of court rulings" left "Wall Street and much of the world trying to discern the future of U.S. trade policy."
Trump slammed the three trade court judges who unanimously ruled against him Wednesday — one of whom he appointed — in a long, angry social media post that also called conservative judicial mastermind Leonard Leo a "sleazebag" who "probably hates America." Hopefully, Trump wrote, "the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, country threatening decision, quickly and decisively."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Trump's case for using the 1977 law "was precarious from the start," Ankush Khardori said at Politico Magazine. And although the Supreme Court is "heavily skewed in his favor," it is "far from clear that they will bail him out" here. Trump has "other laws he can use to impose tariffs, though most are more limited than his emergency claims," The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial, but he "would be wiser to heed the trade court's ruling as the political gift it is and liberate his presidency and the economy from his destructive tariff obsessions."
What next?
The Federal Circuit court said it wanted arguments from both sides by June 9, a deadline suggesting the appellate court's 11 active judges are "prepared to move swiftly on the case," the Journal said. Contreras paused his ruling for two weeks to allow the administration to appeal to the separate U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Sign up for The Week’s Politics Recap newsletter
Making sense of the week's political news, delivered every Wednesday
Peter has worked as a news and culture writer and editor at The Week since the site's launch in 2008. He covers politics, world affairs, religion and cultural currents. His journalism career began as a copy editor at a financial newswire and has included editorial positions at The New York Times Magazine, Facts on File, and Oregon State University.
