What happened this morning when the court, the

Source: Wall Street News

What did the US court specifically say when it halted Trump's tariffs?

According to CCTV News, on the local time of May 28, the United States Court of International Trade blocked the entry into force of the tariff policy announced by US President Trump on April 2 and ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority by imposing comprehensive tariffs on countries that export more to the US than they import.

Three judges, appointed respectively by Reagan, Obama, and Trump himself, unanimously ruled that the president had abused his emergency powers and crossed the constitutional red line. If Trump loses the appeal in the following process, the trade war he launched will come to an abrupt end within 10 days.

Subsequently, the White House responded firmly and quickly, saying it would use "every lever of executive power" to counter the ruling of these "unelected judges".

The market paid relatively little attention to this legal event that could have a significant impact. Last week, Wall Street News had already reminded users to pay attention. Previously, when everyone's attention was focused on the tariff deadline on June 1 and Trump's "trade showdown" with the European Union, a low - key but potentially far - reaching legal event was quietly approaching.

At that time, Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips reminded in a report that the United States Court of International Trade would rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the coming weeks, and this injunction could potentially revoke the tariffs announced by Trump on April 2. Although the court is unlikely to approve the preliminary injunction, this is a potential positive risk that the market generally ignores.

The "reciprocal tariffs" are suspected of multiple illegalities

In its ruling, the United States Court of International Trade declared that the high tariffs imposed by President Trump on multiple countries shortly after taking office were illegal. This ruling involved two consolidated cases - V.O.S. Selections v. United States and Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security.

Regarding this ruling, the court reached four important conclusions:

Limited presidential power under IEEPA

The court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 could not give the president "unlimited tariff - setting power". Trump has no right to impose tariffs on any country, in any amount, and for an indefinite period. If the law really gave the president such broad powers, it would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Strict restrictions on tariffs imposed for trade deficit

Trump imposed tariffs on the grounds of solving the trade deficit, but the court pointed out that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 clearly stipulates that tariffs imposed for trade deficit can only reach a maximum of 15% and cannot exceed 150 days.

Tariffs fail to address "special threats"

The court also rejected Trump's claim that tariffs could curb the inflow of illegal drugs, believing that tariffs do not directly prevent any drugs from entering the country and are merely a diplomatic strategy to pressure other countries, which does not meet the requirement of "addressing" an emergency situation as stipulated in the IEEPA.

Nationwide permanent injunction

The Constitution requires that "tariffs and taxes must be uniform throughout the United States", so the court permanently prohibited the implementation of these tariffs nationwide.

What will happen next?

The appeal battle has begun

The latest news shows that after the ruling was announced, the Trump administration immediately submitted an appeal plan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This case will usually first be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and may ultimately be sent to the Supreme Court.

The "reciprocal tariffs" face a 10 - day countdown to expiration

The court stated that it "will issue the necessary administrative order within 10 calendar days to enforce the permanent injunction". If there is no intervention by a higher - level court at that time, the "reciprocal tariffs" policy will expire.

The government applies for an emergency stay + alternative tariffs

According to Ted Murphy, a trade lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP, in addition to appealing, the government may seek an emergency stay of the court's ruling and initiate alternative tariffs under other laws.

Some tariffs are not affected

It is worth noting that this ruling does not affect the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the authorization of other laws, including tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, as well as the tariffs that Trump threatened to impose on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other key products.

The trade situation becomes more "uncertain"

Since April, the Trump administration has been using "reciprocal tariffs" as a bargaining chip to promote trade negotiations with about 18 countries. Now, this situation has been forced to reach a turning point.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer warned that if the court's ruling goes against the government, it will hinder its efforts to negotiate trade agreements with other countries.

Everett Eissenstat, a partner at Squire Patton Boggs, also said that this ruling "has significantly affected the short - term dynamics of the president's tariff and trade agenda".

As the court challenges Trump's tariff - setting power, the market will closely monitor the appeal process and the possible emergency intervention of the Supreme Court. It is expected that global trade policies will remain in an uncertain state until a decision is made by a higher - level court.

Disclaimer: The views in this article represent only the personal views of the author and do not constitute investment advice from this platform. This platform makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, originality, or timeliness of the article's information, nor does it assume any liability for any losses arising from the use or reliance on the article's information.