“Unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating”: Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries as businesses demand refunds

A federal court has unanimously struck down former President Donald Trump’s tariffs on multiple countries, ruling that his use of national emergency claims to justify the duties exceeded his legal authority. The decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade represents a significant blow to one of Trump’s key economic policies.

According to Politico, the ruling nullified Trump’s executive orders that imposed 25 percent duties on Canadian and Mexican products, 20 percent tariffs on Chinese goods related to drug trafficking concerns, and a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. trading partners to address trade deficits. The court also invalidated Trump’s paused “reciprocal” tariffs of between 20 and 50 percent on approximately 60 trading partners.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who filed one of the lawsuits along with 11 other state attorneys general, celebrated the decision, stating: “Today’s court order is a victory not just for Oregon, but for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans. President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating.” He emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t grant any president unchecked authority to disrupt the economy.

Businesses may receive refunds as the Justice Department appeals the decision

The court’s decision opens the possibility for businesses to receive refunds on previously paid tariffs. According to Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University who helped argue the case, anyone who paid these tariffs will be eligible for refunds. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal, potentially setting up a path to the Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel, consisting of appointees from different administrations, including Trump’s own, determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not authorize the president to impose unlimited tariffs. This law typically allows presidents to implement tariffs, embargoes, and sanctions in response to national emergencies.

The ruling specifically affects cases brought by V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based wine company, along with other small businesses, and a separate case filed by Democrat-led states. However, it does not impact other tariffs Trump imposed under different authorities, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which permits tariffs based on national security grounds.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued that blocking the tariffs would “kneecap” the president’s ongoing efforts to negotiate new trade deals before July 8, particularly with major trading partners like Japan, India, and the European Union. The White House has not immediately responded to requests for comment on the ruling.

Legal experts suggest that while Trump could attempt to impose similar tariffs through other legal means, replicating the scope of this program would be challenging under different statutes. The court’s decision adds to a series of legal setbacks for Trump’s policy initiatives, including previous judicial blocks on his immigration and federal agency reforms.