Administration’s appeal leaves immediate impact uncertain; agricultural interests watch case with concern for trade relationships.
This is a developing story and will be updated as needed.
Update, May 29, 2:45 p.m. CT: A federal appeals court granted a Trump administration request Thursday to temporarily reinstate tariffs struck down by the U.S. Court of International Trade. The ruling means those tariffs will remain in effect for now as the case works its way through the courts.
Trump administration officials told the court that reinstating the tariffs struck down Wednesday was “critical” for national security. This came after administration officials previously told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that they intended to ask for emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court as early as Friday if the trade court’s decision was not put on hold.
May 29, 1:50 p.m. CT: The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down a substantial portion of President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. A three-judge panel ruled the president overstepped his authority when he cited the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act as justification for levying tariffs on countries across the globe.
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to levy tariffs. However, the IEEPA gives presidents “broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions” in the event of a national emergency.
That law has been invoked by previous administrations to levy trade embargoes and sanctions. No president has attempted to use it to justify additional tariffs.
According to the court, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are not legal because they respond to an imbalance in trade. According to the court, that in itself does not constitute a national emergency. Thus, the 10% tariffs on all trading partners, as well temporarily paused higher tariffs, are all nullified for now.
“Worldwide and retaliatory tariffs do not comply with the limitations Congress imposed upon the president’s power to respond to balance-of-payments deficits,” the court said in its May 28 ruling. “The president’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president under IEEPA.”
The court also struck down additional tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico, as well a 20% tariff on China that Trump imposed in March. The president said these duties were levied to combat what he says is those countries’ role in drug trafficking. According to the three-judge panel, tariffs for drug trafficking do not “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.” Thus, Congress cannot delegate tariff authority on that matter to the president.
What happens next?
Notably, the court’s decisions only applies to tariffs Trump imposed through the IEEPA. It does not affect tariffs on steel and aluminum, which the administration imposed citing other legal precedents. It also does not impact additional tariffs that Trump has threatened against specific products or business sectors.
The court gave the administration 10 days to respond to its ruling. Consequently, it remains unclear what immediate impact it will have.
As expected, the Trump administration has already appealed the ruling. As of the morning of May 29, the president had not publicly commented on the ruling. In multiple subsequent interviews, senior administration officials expressed confidence they would eventually prevail in the courts.
Kush Desai, White House deputy press secretary, issued a statement critical of not only the court’s findings, but also its authority. According to him, foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled current trade deficits. He said those deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left workers behind and weakened the U.S. defense industrial base.
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Desai said. “President Trump pledged to put America first, and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness.”
Thus far, most major ag groups have remained quiet on the decision as the case plays out. Many of them have previously expressed concerns regarding how tariffs will impact agriculture trade and input costs. Still, there has been some hope that the president will be able to use tariffs as leverage to ultimately achieve better trade deals.
Privately, many who are skeptical of Trump’s tariff policy have been reluctant to say too much publicly in hopes of maintaining good working relationships with the administration.
One person not concerned with calling out Trump is House Agriculture Ranking Member Angie Craig. The top Democrat on the House Ag Committee has consistently called out Trump for what she considers to be illegal tariffs.
In a May 29 public statement, Craig applauded the court for “protecting” Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate commerce with other countries. She says presidents cannot be allowed to “twist” emergency declarations that circumvent the Constitution, usurp the role of Congress and ignore the courts.
“The president’s whiplash tariffs have been a disaster for America’s farmers, consumers and small-business owners, driving up costs and increasing uncertainty,” Craig said. “I urge the president to respect the court’s ruling and focus his attention on meaningful negotiations with our trading partners to gain new access to foreign markets for America’s farmers.”
By all indications, Trump has no intention of adhering to the court ruling. Thus, attention will now turn to not only how the appellate court rules, but also how the Trump administration responds in the meantime.
You can now read the most important #news on #eDairyNews #Whatsapp channels!!!
🇺🇸 eDairy News INGLÊS: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaKsjzGDTkJyIN6hcP1K
