Yet another Federal court in the US flagged down Trump’s MAGA train. Almost within 24 hours of a trade court blocking Trump’s tariffs, Appeals court unblocked the order. What President Donald Trump proposes, the Federal court disposes. This rollercoaster ride is likely to go on for an unforeseeable future till the final order comes and target countries can take solid decision on how to deal with the US only thereafter.
The reprieve from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is only temporary, while it examines the challenge of Trump. While outcome takes it own time, it is important to see what is at stake for countries such as India; what are directions of the U.S. Court of International Trade; and what are the Trump’s contention while he seeks quashing of a trade court order.
What is at stake for India?
Restoration of Market Access Steel and aluminum producers in India—which face U.S. “Section 232” tariffs at 25 percent (steel) and 10 percent (aluminum) since 2018, will once again compete on price without the artificial U.S. surcharge if injunction is upheld by the Appeals court. And this translates into higher volumes of Indian steel, aluminum, and related downstream products entering the U.S. market, helping to ease the excess inventories that have weighed on domestic producers back home.
Pharmaceuticals and IT Services Though the trade court’s order targets only tariffs on imports, a clipped executive trade power reduces the risk that future unilateral levies Indian exports such as generic pharmaceuticals and information-technology services. New Delhi also has been pressing for deeper market access in areas like data flows, visas, and investment screening.
What went against Trump’s tariff in trade court?
US Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency‐tariff on imports from other countries for several lacunae in the his “Liberation Day” tariff order. The court said that US Government can not be handed “Emergency” blank check under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and held that the President had exceeded the authority Congress granted him. Trump’s tariff order imposed up to 50 percent duties with no statutory cap.
According to the court, IEEPA allows measures only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat … with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” The court held that generic concerns about deficits or unfair trade do not meet that high bar.
The judges also stressed that “The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to ‘lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,’ and to ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.’” By setting new tariff levels unilaterally, the President stepped into Congress’s central law-making domain.
U.S. tariffs must apply “with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.” Here, the orders carved out no coherent scheme of uniform rates, instead picking and choosing ad valorem percentages up to 50 percent – contrary to the Constitution’s mandate that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
The court warned that Congress cannot “abdicate or transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is vested.” By giving the President wholly discretionary tariff-setting power, the orders violated basic separation-of-powers principles.“The Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested,” it added.
Simply declaring a “national emergency” does not override constitutional and statutory checks. As the court put it: “The mere incantation of ‘national emergency’ cannot, of course, sound the death-knell of the Constitution … [nor] enable the President to rewrite the tariff schedules.”
Summing up, the court concluded: “IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders.”
In other words, the orders were void because they lay beyond any power Congress actually granted to the President, not reasonably tied to any defined emergency.
Each of these findings underscores the judges’ view that sweeping tariff decisions – even in the name of national security – must follow clear statutory directions and respect Congress’s exclusive role in raising revenue.
Team Trump’s Contentions at the Appeals Court
Before the Appeals Court, Trump team argued that the tariffs are lawful under IEEPA and necessary for national security. Their action of levying tariff is well within the “economic” clause of the nature of emergency. They insist the President had valid emergency‐powers authority, and that halting the tariffs would undermine America’s ability to respond swiftly to “unusual and extraordinary threats.”
The Trump side was confident that they would to win on appeal as the trade court misread the statute, and that the Federal Circuit will reverse, restoring the President’s freedom to impose targeted duties without awaiting a new Act of Congress.
The team also cautioned court that keeping the tariffs paused would cause irreparable harm. Blocking the duties now would injure national security interests and damage domestic producers who are relying on the enforced rates. Any refund remedy later would be a poor substitute for preserving the status quo.
The team said maintaining the tariffs protects critical supply chains and U.S. manufacturers, whereas private parties challenging the duties can be made whole with money damages if they ultimately prevail. Finally, the Trump team has also asked the court to consolidate all related appeals into one proceeding on a single, streamlined schedule.
