The Trump administration on Monday argued to an appeals court that a lower court’s invalidation of the president’s “Liberation Day” tariffs was “illegal” and that reimposing a halt to those duties would risk “irreparable economic and national security harms.”
The administration made these statements in a document filed Monday with the US Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., saying the court should keep Trump’s tariffs in place while considering the president’s wider legal arguments about his trade policies.
The president is seeking a new legal victory after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) said in May that he lacked authority to impose his “Liberation Day” duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).
That decision was temporarily put on hold by the appeals court, pending further arguments. The appeals court could issue a decision at any time, either keeping the tariffs in place or putting them back on hold, pending the outcome of the administration’s appeal.
The argument made in favor of keeping them in place is that reimposing the CIT’s injunction that invalidated the tariffs would risk “irreparable economic and national security harms,” according to the court document filed Monday.
“The injunction unilaterally diminishes America’s bargaining position during sensitive trade negotiations, encouraging other countries to hold our nation hostage,” the administration said.
The CIT’s decision, it said, usurped political choices, putting the judiciary in a central role in managing foreign negotiations, the national economy, and national security.
In addition, the administration said, it would likely prevail over the lower court’s ruling on appeal because the lower court misapplied the text of the IEEPA. That court’s interpretation of the law would “unnaturally cabin” the president’s tariff authority, the administration said.
Read more: What Trump’s tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet
The CIT ruled that the president lacked power under IEEPA to impose the duties, saying “any interpretation” of IEEPA “that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.”
The ruling touched on key issues in the underlying case that will likely determine the ultimate fate of the administration’s tariffs.
In its decision striking down many of Trump’s tariffs, it avoided directly applying the “major questions doctrine,” which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of “vast economic and political significance” except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action.
In 2022, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling dominated by the court’s conservative majority, used the major questions doctrine to find that Biden’s EPA lacked clear congressional authorization to regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions.
A year later, the court held that Biden’s secretary of education lacked clear authority under the HEROES Act to forgive $400 billion in student loan debt. Like the EPA case, the court said Biden’s debt relief regulation was so major that it would need explicit authorization from Congress.
Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
