A day after a trade court determined that the tariffs were above the authority of the president, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated (PDF) US President Donald Trump.
On Thursday, the Federal Circuit’s Court of Appeals in Washington temporarily halted the lower court’s decision, but it provided no justification for it, giving the plaintiffs only until June 5 to respond.
The Trump administration filed an emergency motion with the Federal Circuit, arguing that a halt is “essential to the country’s national security.”
The decision was applauded by the White House.
Trade adviser Peter Navarro said, “You can assume that we will find another way even if we lose tariff cases.”
His accusations that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US were being tarnished or delayed by the US Court of International Trade’s surprise ruling on Wednesday, which had threatened to halt or delay Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on most US trading partners as well as import levies on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China.
The International Court of Trade ruled that tariffs made under the IEEPA, which is typically used to address national emergencies rather than to deal with the country’s debt, were overreach.
According to experts, the IEEPA, which was passed in 1977, is only applicable to certain nations, US-designated “terrorist organizations” (terrorist organizations), or gang activity that is tied to specific circumstances. For instance, the US used the law to seize both the property of Colombian drug traffickers in 1995 and the property of Iran’s government during the hostage situation in 1979.
Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, claimed that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t mention tariffs in any way.
In the event of a national emergency, Fein added that a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permits tariffs. He did point out that the commerce secretary must conduct an investigation and that product-by-product regulations cannot be applied.
‘Product-by-product’
Despite the appeal court’s reprieve, the administration’s economic strategy, which has so far resulted in lower consumer confidence and a US decline in its top credit rating, has been criticized for its decision on Wednesday.
In the end, according to experts, the tariffs won’t be effective.
Attorney Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that importers should eventually be able to recover any [IEEPA] tariffs they have already paid. However, the government will likely try to hold off on refund requests until the appeals are over. ″
The Congress has the authority to determine the tariff levels. There is no mention of raising tariffs in the IEEPA. And it was actually passed to lessen the president’s authority. According to Greg Schaffer, professor of international law at Georgetown Law School, the president is rewriting the tariff schedule for the entire world.
The Trade Expansion Act, a law that was used to justify tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars, did not appear before the US trade court.
Similar narrow tariffs can also be applied to other industries, such as Chinese pharmaceuticals. The US Department of Commerce announced in April that it would look into whether US reliance on China for active ingredients in important medications posed a threat to national security and warranted tariffs.
Former associate deputy attorney general Fein said, “This is not a question of whether the president can impose tariffs.” He may use the 1962 Act after conducting a study and demonstrating that it is not arbitrary and capricious and that it uses a product-by-product approach rather than a country-by-country one. ”
