President Donald Trump’s bold tariff strategy is under fire as federal judges poke holes in its legal foundation.
ABC News reported that a panel of appeals court judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit just heard arguments challenging the sweeping tariffs Trump imposed, with a looming deadline for reciprocal tariffs set to kick in soon after the hearing on Thursday.
Let’s rewind to April, when Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a dusty old law rarely dusted off for such purposes—to justify these tariffs.
Small businesses and a coalition of states are pushing back hard, arguing the president overstepped his authority with a law that doesn’t even whisper the word “tariffs.” It’s a classic case of stretching a statute further than a progressive agenda at a university seminar.
During the hearing, one judge didn’t mince words, stating, “IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs anywhere.” Well, that’s a problem when you’re trying to slap billions in duties on everything from China to Mexico. If the law’s silent on tariffs, is this just a creative interpretation or a bridge too far?
Another judge chimed in, noting, “IEEPA is rarely used—it's been over 50 years.” This isn’t just dusting off an old playbook; it’s rewriting the rules mid-game.
For conservatives who value strict adherence to legal text, this skepticism from the bench feels like a breath of fresh air.
Yet another judge questioned the logic with a zinger: If military readiness is the excuse, could a 20% tax on coffee be next? It’s a fair point—without a clear link to an emergency, this starts looking less like policy and more like a power grab. We support strong leadership, but not at the expense of constitutional guardrails.
The Trump administration isn’t backing down, arguing these tariffs tackle an “unusual and extraordinary threat” tied to trade deficits and the fentanyl crisis killing Americans.
Their lawyers, in court filings, framed it as a national emergency, stating America’s trade imbalance and drug trafficking are dire issues. It’s a compelling case for those of us tired of watching our economy bleed out due to unfair trade practices.
But let’s not sip the Kool-Aid just yet—opponents like Neal Katyal, representing businesses, called the broader bargaining chip argument simply “bogus.”
That’s a harsh dismissal of a strategy many MAGA supporters see as a necessary hardball tactic. Still, if the legal foundation is shaky, no amount of patriotic fervor can prop it up.
The administration also warned that striking down these tariffs would trigger a “foreign policy disaster” during delicate trade talks. That’s a scary thought for anyone who believes America must negotiate from strength, not weakness. Yet, shouldn’t strength come from lawful authority, not executive overreach?
On the flip side, small businesses and state attorneys general aren’t buying the emergency narrative, arguing IEEPA doesn’t grant “unlimited tariff authority.”
Their written arguments paint Trump’s approach as chaotic, claiming it “wreaked havoc on capital markets and the economy.” For hardworking entrepreneurs already squeezed by inflation, that’s a gut punch worth listening to.
President Trump himself took to social media Thursday morning, declaring, “If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD.'”
It’s vintage Trump—unapologetic and doubling down on America First. While the passion resonates with many of us frustrated by globalist trade deals, passion alone doesn’t win in court.
Earlier, in May, the New York-based Court of International Trade ruled Trump lacked unilateral authority for these global tariffs, including the so-called “Liberation Day” duties and those targeting fentanyl trafficking. That decision was stayed by a federal appeals court, allowing this appeal to move forward. It’s a legal ping-pong match with billions in trade on the line.
The administration insists invalidating these tariffs would strip the U.S. of a vital tool to fight distortions in global trade. For those of us who see China’s trade practices as a slow bleed on our economy, that’s a real concern. But unchecked power in one man’s hands—even a president we admire—sets a precedent that could haunt us down the road.
This legal battle isn’t just about tariffs; it’s about the scope of executive power and whether emergencies can be declared to bypass Congress.
Small businesses and states argue Trump hasn’t proven an “unusual threat” to justify this move. It’s a reminder that even conservative policies must stand on firm legal ground, not just good intentions.