The Washington-based court put the case on an expedited track, citing the “issues of exceptional importance” at stake, and scheduled arguments for July 31. The court didn’t offer a detailed reason for siding with the administration at this stage, indicating in the order that the government had met its burden for showing that keeping the lower court’s injunction on hold was “warranted.” No judge noted a dissent.
The Trump administration asked the appeals court to step in after the US Court of International Trade last month ruled that Trump had misused an emergency law to implement the tariffs. Absent swift intervention by the US Supreme Court, the levies will likely stay in place for months, if not longer, as the rest of the legal fight plays out before the Washington-based appellate court.Tuesday’s order comes a month before Trump’s own 90-day pause on most of his sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs is set to expire. On July 9, US tariff rates are set to increase drastically for many nations, absent a trade or further extension. Goods from the European Union, for instance, are facing a 50% levy.
Companies led by New York wine importer V.O.S. Selections Inc. claimed that letting the tariffs go into effect would lead to much higher costs and lower sales, with some of them likely to end up in bankruptcy. The administration argued that blocking the tariffs would disrupt US diplomacy and intrude upon the president’s power to conduct foreign affairs.A dozen Democratic-led states also sued the administration over the tariffs.
Tariffs covered by the trade court ruling include Trump’s global 10% levy, his April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs and measures targeting China, Canada and Mexico over fentanyl trafficking. The president claimed authority to impose those tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
A three-judge panel of the trade court ruled last month that law didn’t give the president unbridled tariff power. The court also took issue with Trump’s claims of “emergencies” over trade deficits and drug-trafficking. In their decision, the judges said government lawyers actually undercut that position by arguing that tariffs were needed as negotiating tools.
“The government’s ‘pressure’ argument effectively concedes that the direct effect of the country-specific tariffs is simply to burden the countries they target,” wrote the panel, which includes judges appointed by Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.
Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles were imposed under a different law, so were not affected by the trade court ruling. Administration officials have often publicly downplayed the impact of the May 28 decision by claiming that most of its tariffs can be imposed by other means.
Global markets have fluctuated wildly since Trump announced the so-called reciprocal levies in a sweeping executive order on April 2. Since then, trillions of dollars in market value have been shed and regained amid weeks of delays, reversals and announcements about potential trade deals, particularly with China.
