U.S. Appeals Court Temporarily Reinstates Trump's Broad Tariff Measures

Federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated key elements of former President Donald Trump’s broad tariff policy, just one day after a lower trade court had blocked them, ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority in imposing the duties.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington issued a brief order that did not provide any rationale for the decision. However, it instructed the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs to respond by June 5, with the government’s reply due by June 9.

The lower court’s ruling on Wednesday had disrupted the implementation of Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. These measures targeted a broad range of imports from major U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, and China. Trump had justified the tariffs by accusing these countries of enabling the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

Despite the trade court’s decision, senior officials from the Trump administration signaled confidence in ultimately upholding the tariffs. They indicated that they were prepared to either succeed on appeal or invoke other presidential authorities to move forward with the duties.

The White House stated that the ruling had not hindered ongoing trade negotiations. A fourth round of talks with Japan is scheduled to take place in Washington on Friday, while a delegation from India is expected to arrive next week for bilateral discussions.

Financial markets reacted cautiously to the legal developments. While the trade court’s initial decision spurred modest optimism, gains in stock prices were limited by the expectation that the issue could be tied up in a protracted appeals process.

Uncertainty continues to loom over the future of Trump’s tariffs. According to a Reuters analysis, the duties have resulted in over $34 billion in combined costs for businesses, including lost revenue and increased expenses.

Adding to the legal complexity, another federal court earlier Thursday ruled that Trump had overstepped his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This decision focused on two specific tariff provisions: a minimum 10% tariff on goods from most U.S. trading partners and a 25% levy on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China linked to fentanyl-related concerns. However, the court's injunction in that case was narrowly applied, benefiting only the toy company that had filed the lawsuit.

Source: Reuters.com