The interruption to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda was short lived.
A federal appeals court has now granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause the Wednesday lower-court ruling that declared an emergency law does not provide President Trump with unilateral authority to impose tariffs on nearly every country — a decision that would have blocked reciprocal tariff announcements dating back to February.
The original ruling was issued by a three-judge panel at The U.S. Court of International Trade. The judges said the sweeping tariffs and other global levies imposed under the International Emergency Economic Power Act were unlawful, which invalidates President Trump’s April 2 reciprocal tariff order. That order included 30% tariffs on Chinese imports, 25% tariffs on select goods from Mexico and Canada, as well as a blanket 10% tariff on most imported goods.
The Trump administration then filed a notice of appeal, which was granted on Thursday by a federal appeals court. The pause gives the Trump administration some additional time to prepare to argue the law empowers the president to unilaterally launch a global tariff strategy.
Before the appeal was announced, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt slammed the U.S. Court of International Trade ruling on Trump’s tariffs. Leavitt said the judges were “overstepping their bounds.” You can listen to her comments below.
How could this ruling potentially impact trade? We asked Alan Brugler of Brugler Marketing that question before the appeals court weighed in. He says to answer that, you first need to ask two main questions.
“In the short run, not much. You have to assume the administration is going to appeal the ruling and the question is going to be ‘Will the appeals process result in a stay, either freezing the tariff implementation or allowing it to continue during the appeal process?’ That’s the first question,” Brugler says.
Brugler says his second question is how this could impact current trade negotiations. Just last week, treasury secretary Scott Bessent said he expects several large trade deals to be announced in the next couple of weeks.
“What does it do to the administration’s leverage on the deals that they said we were coming close to,” Brugler adds. “The EU is one example. For now, I think we have to take it with a grain of salt. We also need to remember that it does not affect some of the tariffs, such as the aluminum and steel. Those were implemented under a different section of law that had been used back in the 2017 and 2018 era. Those are still in place. So, it does offer some potential for a lot less aggressive tariff war. But again, this is probably just the first step in the overall process.”
Mike North of Ever.Ag doesn’t think this gives President Trump’s administration less leverage. Instead, he chalks up the ruling to the ongoing theme of federal courts trying to overturn any major action Trump tries to take.
“I think as you look at the landscape, he’s come into office very aggressively — trying to enact very quickly the promises he made in his campaign. Ultimately, as you look at the flow of things, we had to expect the court was going to weigh in on this tariff discussion at some point. There hasn’t been a thing he’s done that hasn’t resulted in some form of a lawsuit, court order, court filing, judgment or otherwise. This is just the natural next step in this discussion,” North says.
North points out there are ways to differentiate how President Trump can leverage this, specifically referencing the 1974 Trade Act.
“That ultimately has many parts and pieces to it, and to Alan’s point, allows him to take a lot of different angles here. So, I don’t think anything that’s come out over the last couple of days on this discussion is really going to change the course of much of anything — at least in the short run,” North says.
What is the U.S. Court of International Trade?
If you’ve never heard of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), you aren’t alone. CIT is based in New York, and its purpose is to resolve disputes between governments, manufacturers, trade associations and other parties that may be privy to trade dealings.
According to the Court’s website, “from the time of its establishment, the United States Court of International Trade and its predecessor bodies have been designed to provide a comprehensive system for judicial review of civil actions arising out of import transactions and federal transactions affecting international trade.”
Mark A. Barnett, chief judge at CIT, says, “As the impact of international trade on the U.S. economy has expanded, there has been a corresponding increase in international trade disputes — involving governments, foreign and domestic manufacturers, workers’ unions, trade associations and individuals — and a continued need to provide consistent, fair and impartial adjudication of these disputes. While the nature of these disputes shifts between classification and valuation, unfair trade practices and various types of enforcement measures, the United States Court of International Trade continues to strive for the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding brought before it.”
