Trump’s tariffs: legal or illegal?
Commenter “Bauxite” writes, concerning a court’s recent blocking of Trump’s tariffs:
A court “kneecapped” Trump’s power to impose tariffs because Trump never had that power to begin with.
It wasn’t that long ago, just a few years, that conservatives would still be rightly outraged when presidents acted beyond their powers and claimed to justify themselves with never-before-conceived interpretations of decades-old statutes. Good times.
Goodness knows there have been some screwy and abusive court decisions since January. This isn’t one of them.
Biden imposed tariffs by EO as well and extended some of Trump’s first-term ones: he kept Trump’s China tariffs, as well as later raising them. You can read more details here.
As far as the legality of tariffs by EO generally goes, see this:
A key question is whether a president has the authority to implement the types of across-the-board tariffs being discussed by Trump. The U.S. Constitution plainly grants the power to impose tariffs to Congress, not the president: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” (Article 1, Section 8). However, Congress has delegated extensive authorities that allow the president to impose tariffs if certain statutory conditions are met.
While some analysts have tried to reassure investors and markets by asserting that Trump would lack the legal authority to implement his tariffs plans, this reflects an overly optimistic view of the limits of presidential tariff authority. As of today, there are multiple legal authorities that Trump could rely on to justify the imposition of increased tariffs, including many that Trump already availed himself of during his presidency. These include Sections 232 and 301, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Section 122 Balance-of-Payments Authority, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. While Section 232 requires an investigation by the Department of Commerce and Section 301 requires an investigation and determination by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), these procedural niceties could be accomplished in relatively short order by cabinet officials, particularly since undue delay could put them at risk of getting fired. Regardless, any investigation or public comment period would allow anticipation to build, enhancing Trump’s negotiating leverage, which is likely one of the main points of the exercise.
That was published by CSIS, which bills itself as bipartisan but is currently headed by Thomas Pritzker. The article describes each law and how it could be used to justify Trump’s tariffs; it was written shortly prior to Trump’s 2024 election.
But some the tariffs in Trump’s second are somewhat different and were imposed under the National Emergencies Act. Wiki summarizes Trump’s second-term tariffs this way:
In his second term, Trump added tariffs to steel, aluminum, and auto imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (TEA), which allows the President to modify imports if the Secretary of Commerce conducts an investigation, holds public hearings, and determines that the imports threaten national security. Trump directed the USTR to initiate similar investigations to impose tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Trump also invoked unprecedented powers under the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by declaring multiple “national emergencies” related to border security, energy, and trade deficits. Declaring these emergencies allowed Trump to enact tariffs quickly without following the complex procedures required by TEA or other trade statutes. While the IEEPA had been used for sanctions, it had never before been used for tariffs. …The New York Times reported that “many economists and legal experts believe that the idea of an emergency has been concocted to justify Mr. Trump’s desire to impose sweeping import duties without regard to congressional approval or international trade rules.”
Congress didn’t act against those tariffs:
To terminate a national emergency under the NEA, a member of Congress may file a privileged resolution requiring their chamber to vote on the topic within 15 days. Democratic representatives introduced resolutions to end several of Trump’s national emergencies justifying tariffs, but these efforts were blocked by the Republican congressional majority. JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to uphold the emergency underpinning the “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Trump’s opposition was ready with many cases challenging his tariff imposition under this particular act – although of course they’d be on the other side if it was Biden trying to impose them:
In May 2025, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) held hearings for V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and Oregon v. Trump. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump was heard before the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the court unanimously ruled in favor of a permanent injunction preventing Trump’s 30% China tariffs, 25% Mexico and Canada tariffs, and the 10% universal tariff on most imported U.S. goods. They concurred with the plaintiffs in finding that IEEPA “does not authorize any of the worldwide, retaliatory, or trafficking tariff orders.”
The Trump administration will appeal, of course, and the case is likely to go to SCOTUS. I have no idea what will happen there, but here’s an article at Legal Insurrection laying out some of the legal complexities. It’s not a slam dunk either way, IMHO.
In other words, statutes are open to interpretation, and most court decisions these days seem to be mostly political.
NOTE: Here’s Jonathan Turley on the subject. As usual, well worth reading, and I basically agree with him that Congress needs to act.
An editorial by Glenn Reynolds on the district courts’ injunctivitis. He thinks the president should ignore the orders. Even from SCOTUS
https://nypost.com/2025/05/26/opinion/courts-infected-by-injunctivitis-tempt-trumps-defiance/
I first read the term injunctivitis coined by Jonathan Turley (which Reynolds notes in his essay).
I keep wondering whether these judges continue issuing “national” injunctions because they can, or if they’re consciously trying to bait Trump into ignoring them to cite him as the source of the so-called constitutional crisis? (I know, embrace the power of “and”).
Turley, Reynolds, and (Josh) Blackman, among others clearly indicate their belief that any crisis here is being fomented by the judiciary and not by the executive branch. With today’s Appeal’s Court reversal of the injunctive stay, and SCOTUS’ 8-0 curb on judicial environmental authority, one might think that SCOTUS is in this camp as well.
People seem to be looking to the upcoming decision on the birthright case expecting a definitive ruling on the validity of national circuit injunctions, but SCOTUS has surprised us before. As William Jabson (Legal Insurrection) has noted: “What’s going on at the Supreme Court is that not enough is going on.”
What, Bauxite was talking out of his ass? Who knew…
I was watching a Republican Congresswoman from out West beating the bleep out of a witness about the judicial injunctions. She made some point about bonds being needed. Anyone know what she was talking about?
Paul, the BBB has a provision The plaintiffs have to provide a bond before the district courts in Junction can be enforced
Legal or illegal has got nothing to do with it. This is a political issue totally under the purview of congress. The leftist trash judges are running interference for a minority that hasn’t got the votes.
Congress seems content to sit on its hands and watch the action.
I know Trump was focused on his BBB, but it is time for him to tell Congress to either validate his agenda; or publicly oppose it.
I have seen more than once that a Federal Judge has brazenly violated procedural requirements before issuing an injunction. I don’t know why the Administration does not put that to the test by refusing to acknowledge such flawed decisions.
I also don’t understand why they have not summarily rejected every policy decision that was signed by auto pen during Biden’s term. Put the onus on the other side to prove that they were legitimate. Further, Congress, or SCOTUS as appropriate, should outlaw the use of the auto pen for policy documents. It should be a legal requirement that they be signed by the President in a pubic venue–with the exception of emergency decrees, in which case the President should publicly validate his actions at the first possible moment. This foolishness is more Third World nonsense.
Oddly, if a private citizen use docu-sign on a legal document, or e- files a tax return, they must have a PIN to validate the process.
A President on matters of national imporatnce? Nope.
Well they play possum
https://alantonelson.wordpress.com/2025/05/29/whats-left-of-our-economy-why-that-trade-courts-anti-trump-tariff-ruling-makes-no-sense/
Only progs are beligerently opposed
The injunction apparently has been stayed/lifted pending further review, so the tariffs can continue to be levied.
Bob, how big is the bond and who enforces it?
Missing from Turley’s article, that other Presidents imposed tariffs using the same IEEPA emergency law, and were mysteriously not hit with injunctions.
Decisions should have some logic behind them, referring to precedent ans statute
CC™ talking out of his ass?
Shocked!
Wholly unanticipated and unprescidented.
Judges above the law? Who knew, not that Chief Justice Roberts has never decided to make the law.
Sure Art Deco. I agree with a 3-0 decision from three Article III judges, a Reagan appointee, an Obama appointee and . . . wait for it . . . a Trump appointee. All three agreed that his invocation of the IEEPA was improper, but I’m the one “talking out of my ass.”
You’re funny.
Legal or illegal has got nothing to do with it. This is a political issue totally under the purview of congress. The leftist trash judges are running interference for a minority that hasn’t got the votes. [Chases Eagles @ 6:03 pm]
From Instapundit earlier this afternoon:
I think that sums it up.
It appears that CC™ is toots fine with rule by Judges. The Ahab judges and the loyal cabin boy CC™ are in hot pursuit of The Great Orange Whale.
Has CC™ ever noticed that being appointed or nominated by a Republican president is a very unreliable predictor of sound conservative jurisprudence?
Related:
“Court Allows Trump’s Tariffs to Stay in Place”—
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/05/29/court-allows-trumps-tariffs-to-stay-in-place-n4940277
Remember he was sure Orange Man was felon!! because reasons hes just too easy a mark
Outside of thomas and scalia i mean alito everything else is calvinball
Those two were cleareyed with the fraud in 2020
@miguel: Bad Orange Man is indeed a felon, though a wrongfully convicted one. He cannot for example legally own a firearm in New York or Florida. Perhaps an appeals court will overturn that conviction.
Things like this have happened before.
om – I’m fine with the rule of law. I’m certainly fine with the major questions doctrine and I’m even fine with the non-delegation doctrine, and I’d like to see it revived.
In other words, I’m fine with the legal philosophy that the right has believed for decades, and that MAGA professed believe when it was constraining Biden and Obama. Unfortunately, MAGA wants to abandon that legal philosophy now that Trump is the executive being constrained.
I want Trump’s novel and expansive claims of executive power to be constrained because I think he’s a nut job on tariffs, yes, but also because I sure as heck do not want a Democrat in the White House to have the same expansive powers. If Trump can declare a contrived trade “emergency” over conditions that have existed for half a century and, thereby, exercise Congress’s full powers over setting and collecting tariffs, have you even thought about what a Democrat could do? How about the climate “emergency” they keep talking about. Just imagine how the executive could exercise Congress’s commerce clause powers in that case. And if Trump’s reasoning prevails, a Democrat’s declaration of a climate “emergency” would be a non-justiciable political question. How about a structural racism “emergency?” How about a “civil rights emergency” over men not being permitted to compete in women’s sports. I’m sure they can get even more creative than that.
As I mentioned previously, there have been a lot of really bad decisions against the Trump administration, but not all of them have been bad and not every decision against the Trump is TDS or OMB.
I see a great deal of confusion because its difficult to distinguish the good cases from the bad. What I also see, however, is that MAGA is willing to throw overboard everything that we all professed to believe until about 10 minutes ago now that it is inconvenient to Trump.
I don’t know what MAGA is, but conservative it ain’t.
And if you really want to understand what we’re dealing with, peruse the website of the law firm that brought the case against Trump’s tariffs:
https://libertyjusticecenter.org/
They represent truckers vindicating their 2nd amendment rights. They represent a professor who was fired for criticizing DEI. They represented a government worker suing to avoid joining a union.
These are not crazy lefties. They’re not lefties at all.
I’m fine with the rule of law.
==
If it can be used for debater’s points.
That’s some Grade A BS, Art Deco. I defended Trump against ridiculous criminal charges. I regularly defend his administration when against ridiculous decisions. I’m not not the one applying situational principles here.
The documents case the new york fraud case the atlanta case need i go on?
Poor little CC™ he can’t tell the difference between a Law and a Judge, because The Great Orange Whale.
Not at all a new thing with him, but still a sad case.
Related:
“Despite Tariff-flation Fearmongering, Fed’s Favorite Inflation Indicator Tumbles To Four-Year Low”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/despite-tariff-flation-fearmongering-feds-favorite-inflation-indicator-tumbles-four-year
Key grafs:
But will Powell do ANYTHING to help Trump rescue the country??
This seems to be the key question.
Doubtful…since I suspect he’s under phenomenal pressure by the usual suspects—those PROUD, INDEFATIGABLE national saboteurs—to do NOTHING that might assist Trump and make him look good, even if the country, as a whole (AND ITS CITIZENS), benefits.
Hope I’m wrong…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM
Bauxite has his tenses confused. The Dems have already been getting away with novel and expansive executive powers for a couple of decades now, but since the Swamp profited by that Bauxite’s okay with it.
I guess True Conservatism is conserving what Dems have got away with and sitting on your hands instead of rolling anything back.