Days after steep 50% US tariffs on Indian imports came into effect, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that most of former President Donald Trump’s tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful.
While the court found that imposing tariffs under IEEPA violated constitutional limits, it allowed the duties to remain in force until October 14, 2025, giving the Trump administration time to appeal before the US Supreme Court.
Reacting to the ruling, Trump insisted on Truth Social that “all tariffs are still in effect”, vowing that the United States would not tolerate “enormous trade deficits” or “unfair barriers” from both allies and rivals.
The appeals court emphasized that the Constitution grants tariff authority exclusively to Congress, not the executive branch. It stated:
“Tariffs are a core Congressional power. It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to grant the President unlimited authority to impose them.”
The decision directly impacts the 25% reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods and the additional 25% duties on Russian oil imports, both of which were announced under IEEPA. However, other tariffs—such as the 50% duty on steel and aluminium imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—remain unaffected.
Trump Defends Tariffs
Calling the judgment “highly partisan,” Trump said removing tariffs would be a “total disaster” that would weaken the US economy.
He argued that tariffs remain the best tool to protect American workers and manufacturers, adding that the Supreme Court will ultimately “make America strong and powerful again.”
Why Trump Relied on IEEPA
According to US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, IEEPA offered the administration a faster path to tackle trade deficits compared to other mechanisms like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which require lengthy investigations before implementation.
Trump invoked IEEPA in both 2019 and 2025, declaring the US trade deficit and issues like fentanyl inflows from China, Canada, and Mexico as “national emergencies” to justify tariffs. However, the court ruled this interpretation stretched IEEPA beyond its intended scope, which was designed for financial sanctions and emergency controls—not taxation.
Global Impact & Expert Views
Trade experts believe the case could reshape the future of world trade. The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) noted that the Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether tariffs remain a Congressional prerogative or a tool of presidential geopolitics.
Legal scholars, including Professor Markus Wagner from the University of Wollongong, argued that IEEPA was “never the right vehicle” for tariffs but acknowledged that its use gave the Trump administration valuable time to impose duties before facing judicial review.
He added that while the court ruling challenges Trump’s methods, US trade strategy remains unchanged, and the real question is how other nations will respond—by adhering to existing rules or developing counter-strategies.