An 11-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington showed significant doubt regarding President Donald Trump’s legal justification for implementing extensive tariffs, including the recent 35 per cent tariff on Canada. The judges were not convinced by the Trump administration’s argument that the president could unilaterally impose tariffs without congressional approval under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
During the 99-minute hearing, Brett Shumate, representing the administration, admitted that no previous president had interpreted the IEEPA in this manner, but defended the action as lawful. The law, enacted in 1977 during President Jimmy Carter’s tenure, grants the president authority to seize assets and restrict transactions during a national emergency.
Trump contends that the trade deficit justifies invoking the IEEPA for protection. However, the judges raised doubts about whether tariffs fell within the scope of the law and whether the imposed tariffs aligned with the perceived threat.
Shumate argued that Congress’s passage of the IEEPA provided the president with broad powers to address emergencies, refuting claims of unchecked authority. In contrast, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Neal Katyal, criticized Trump’s actions as an audacious power grab, suggesting that it allowed the president unchecked authority under the guise of an emergency declaration.
Although no immediate ruling was issued, the case is anticipated to advance to the U.S. Supreme Court. In response to the ongoing legal battle, Trump expressed support for his legal team on social media, emphasizing the necessity of tariffs in protecting the country.
The case focuses on the Liberation Day tariffs imposed by Trump in April, affecting numerous countries, including Canada and Mexico. While the court decision awaits, the challenge to Trump’s tariff policies underscores broader concerns about executive authority in trade matters.
Multiple lawsuits have accused Trump of exceeding his authority with tariffs, with several states and businesses challenging his actions. Despite the constitutional authority of Congress over tariffs, historical trends have seen a delegation of trade policy control to the presidency.
Trump’s aggressive tariff approach has significantly elevated the average U.S. tariff rate, marking the highest level since 1934. Following the hearing, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield expressed confidence, asserting that the judges appeared skeptical of the administration’s arguments against the tariffs. Rayfield highlighted the substantial impact of the tariffs on importers and consumers, characterizing it as a massive tax increase orchestrated by one individual in the Oval Office.
