How to understand the tariff ban is blocked by the Court of Appeal

**Source**: Wall Street Insights  

Overnight, the Trump administration scored a partial victory.  

According to a Xinhua report on the 29th, a U.S. appellate court reinstated the Trump administration’s tariff policies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved the administration’s request on the 29th to temporarily set aside a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade that had blocked enforcement of Trump’s tariff measures under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) against multiple countries.  

This grants the Trump administration precious response time. Media reports noted that the original court ruling had given the administration only 10 days to rescind the tariffs, but the new order establishes a briefing schedule lasting until June 9 to decide whether to extend the tariff application. If approved—or if a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court is granted—the tariffs could remain in place for months.  

While the Trump team hailed the appellate court’s temporary order as a "victory," a larger shadow looms over the White House. Although U.S. Trade Advisor Peter Navarro assured reporters that "Trump’s tariff agenda remains alive," internal White House fears persist that the appellate court may ultimately uphold the original ruling.  

Bloomberg Economics calculates that if the original ruling takes effect, the U.S. effective tariff rate would drop from nearly 27% last month to below 6%—one of the biggest policy setbacks of Trump’s second term.  

Does Trump Have a Plan B?  

Facing legal challenges, the White House claims to have other avenues for imposing tariffs, but reality is less optimistic than it appears.  

James Lucier, managing director at research firm Capital Alpha Partners, notes:  

*The idea that Trump will activate a Plan B to impose tariffs through other means is problematic. Yes, he may try. But he no longer has time to implement tariffs and show results before the midterm elections.*  

The report states that the Trump administration could indeed impose tariffs through other legal channels such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, but these processes typically take 270 days to complete—a timeframe far too long for Trump, who is eager to demonstrate achievements before the midterms.  

The Supreme Court: The Final Battlefield?  

According to The Washington Post, legal experts widely believe that if these lawsuits ultimately reach the Supreme Court, the parties challenging the tariffs’ legality are likely to prevail.  

Tim Meyer, co-director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at Duke University School of Law, states that the president is "rewriting" tariff legislation passed by Congress.  

Meyer further highlights the constitutional dimension: *When the White House claims this is the largest tax increase in U.S. history, I think it will make judges pause and consider that the Constitution grants Congress—and only Congress—the power to levy tariffs and regulate foreign trade.* This argument直击 (directly targets) the legal vulnerability of Trump’s tariff policies: the question of presidential power boundaries.  

Trade Negotiations May Stalemate  

Currently, Trump’s aides continue to defend him. White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett downplayed the court ruling’s consequences, stating:  

*This certainly won’t affect negotiations. Ultimately, people know President Trump is 100% serious, and they’ve seen that he always wins.*  

However, the court’s ruling will eventually impact Trump’s trade strategy at the negotiation table. As William Reinsch, senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, bluntly told The New York Times:  

*In the very short term, this will definitely disrupt negotiations. Why would countries negotiate to avoid a threat that’s just been ruled illegal?*  

The logic is stark: Tariffs as a bargaining chip depend on their legality and enforceability. Once the courts question their legal basis, Trump’s most powerful negotiating chip loses its deterrence.  

The temporary legal victory may offer the Trump administration short-term relief, but greater tests lie ahead.  

**Disclaimer**: The views expressed in this article are solely those 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 information and assumes no liability for any losses arising from the use of or reliance on this content.