A panel of three judges at the US Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are unlawful.

The decision halts key elements of his trade measures, including global flat tariffs and increased rates on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico.

The challenge was brought by Democratic-led states and small businesses, who argued that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The court found that Trump’s use of the IEEPA exceeded his authority. Tariffs aimed at addressing trade deficits and drug trafficking were ruled to fall outside the law’s emergency provisions.

An executive order targeting Mexico and Canada was also found illegal. However, tariffs imposed under Section 232 and Section 301 remain unaffected.

🔗 Source: Bloomberg

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ The Court of International Trade’s unique role as a specialized judicial check

The Court of International Trade (CIT) that blocked Trump’s tariffs has a specialized role in America’s judicial system that few understand.

Established initially as the Board of General Appraisers in 1890, the court evolved into the U.S. Customs Court in 1926 before becoming the CIT in 1980, specifically designed to handle the increasing complexity of international trade disputes 1.

The court gained full judicial independence in 1956 when it became an Article III court, freeing it from Treasury Department oversight and granting it the same constitutional authority as other federal courts 2.

Unlike most federal courts that hear various case types, the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over trade-related civil actions, including tariff classifications and enforcement measures, making it uniquely positioned to rule on presidential trade actions 3.

This specialized expertise explains why this particular court, rather than a regular federal district court, became the venue for challenging Trump’s emergency tariff authority. It has both the jurisdiction and technical knowledge to evaluate complex trade matters.

2️⃣ Presidential emergency powers face stricter boundaries in trade policy

The court’s ruling reveals significant limitations on a president’s ability to use emergency powers for economic policy objectives.

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs, claiming that “persistent trade deficits” constituted a national emergency, but the court explicitly rejected this rationale, ruling that the president had exceeded his authority under the law 4.