Tariff Takedown: the Court of International Trade Strikes

June 2nd, 2025

Blake McFalls

Donald Trump’s tariffs face the axe. On Wednesday, the Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court based in New York, blocked the majority of Trump’s tariffs. The next day, a second court, this time the District Court for the District of Columbia, further ordered a halt on the tariffs. Also on Thursday, the Trump Administration had the tariffs temporarily reinstated by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Trump has justified the legality of his executive swath of tariffs with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA.) However, the IEEPA is not the only piece of legislation that has historically been used to regulate commerce through the executive branch. The Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA) granted the President power to regulate international trade unilaterally in times of war and national emergencies. The problem was that it granted the President the same wartime control over trade during small emergencies as well. Thus, Congress limited the TWEA’s scope to only wartime situations and replaced the delegated national emergency powers with the IEEPA. Powers under the IEEPA include sanctions on foreign actors and prohibition of certain imports.

Despite the limited abilities of the IEEPA, Trump has used this act generously. He first used it to levy the short-lived 25% tariff over Canada and Mexico. Trump shifted his focus to China and synthetic opioids, instituting a 10% then 20% blanket tariff on China in February and March. On April 2, Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs, which were “reciprocal” tariffs ranging from 10%-50% on foreign countries. Though country-specific tariffs were paused the next week, 10% universal tariffs remained and were coupled with a series of tariff escalations on China.

Trump’s exhaustive and alarming use of tariffs has triggered businesses to take legal action against the Trump Administration. A diverse group of import-dependent businesses preached the case that Trump can not use the IEEPA to levy tariffs to the Court of International Trade and the District Court for the District of Columbia respectively. Both courts ruled against the Trump Administration for the same reasons, but since the IEEPA is not considered a law, jurisdiction technically falls into the hands of the District Court. The reasoning, particularly from the District Court ruling, was clear. Primarily, not only did the Courts not consider these tariffs as a response to a national emergency, but the IEEPA does not give the President the power to tariff even in national emergencies. Section 1702 of the IEEPA states the President can regulate the importation and exportation of goods, and the power to regulate, according to definitions from the era of creation, does not include the power to tariff. Additionally, other Congressional acts that give executive power to tariff, such as the Trade Act of 1974, state specifically how tariffs must be implemented, to which the IEEPA has none. The outcome from the court decision was a preliminary injunction, or a temporary court order, which was issued due to the Court’s observance of irreparable harm caused by the tariffs. This was nullified, however, by the Court of Appeals’ allowance for Trump to temporarily reinstate the tariffs until the Appeals Court itself made a ruling.

The rulings are not the end for Trump’s tariff saga. On June 5, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington will begin hearing cases. If this Court rules against the Trump Administration again, the Administration will likely push its appeal up to the Supreme Court. Given that Trump’s invoking of the IEEPA to tariff was clearly illegal though, the Supreme Court would probably swat down Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA for good. Trump has some other options at his disposal to levy tariffs in the future. However, the reason why Trump used the IEEPA was that it, if it allowed him to tariff, would put no restrictions on the time and size of his tariffs. For instance, the Trade Act of 1974 gives Trump explicit power to tariff, but he would be limited to a 15% maximum tariff and a duration of 150 days, according to Section 122. More disconcertingly, Section 301 of the Tariff Act of 1930 would allow Trump to tariff countries that discriminate against the United States up to 50%. So far, Trump has succeeded in keeping his 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 over national security concerns, even with the recent rulings.

Trump’s crusade of international trade through tariffs have been disastrous for the American economy, but as the Courts start to crack down on his executive actions, businesses and consumers could see a smoother ride throughout the Trump presidency.

Extemp Analysis by Blake McFalls

Extemp question: How will the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington rule on Trump’s usage of the IEEPA?

AGD: I usually search for my AGDs on the subreddit r/nottheonion, but for most of you (including me), you have run a speech on Trump’s tariffs before and therefore may have AGDs already applicable to this topic.

Background: My background consists of 2 parts: the background and the context. Overall, make sure to address the nouns/terms of the question, which here would be Trump’s usage of the IEEPA and the Court of Appeals. The first section of the background should catch the viewer up to date on the tougher nouns. Thus, I would discuss how Trump used the IEEPA to levy tariffs on the rest of the world. The second section (context), think about why the question is being asked right now. This topic makes the context easy, as the Court of Appeals hearing the case this week is the only reason why the question exists. Therefore, this section should include how the case traveled from the CIT to the Court of Appeals and that the Court of Appeals is soon to rule.

Significance: I like to source my SOSs to pack in extra evidence, but more importantly, I work to find ways to make my judge personally care. Thinking about how the Court could determine whether Trump’s tariffs will stay in place or be eliminated, humanize the impacts of tariffs on the average American. For me, I would find a statistic on how much tariffs would cost the average family or consumer. For double-SOS enthusiasts, I would slip in their impacts on the stock market first, then lay out the cost for the average American.

Thesis: The answer to this question is relatively objective. Another way to word this question is “is Trump’s usage of the IEEPA illegal?” to which the answer is pretty clearly yes, and using the rephrasing of the question, my full thesis would be along the lines of “against Trumpst Trump, because Trump’s usage of the IEEPA is illegal.” Sometimes, it is dangerous to assume that an actor in a question will agree with your opinion, and thereby dangerous to base that actor’s decision-making on your opinion. For instance, the question “Will Trump reverse Biden’s work on the environment” can’t be answered by stating Trump shouldn’t hurt the climate, as Trump has different interests than most on the climate. However, the law in general gives less room for the opinions and interests of judges, and interpretation of law has a smaller radius of opinion than most policy issues. Moving onto the umbrella, or 3 points: on legal questions like this one (common ones are “is ___ unconstitutional,”) precedent and language are the most important factors to consider. 3 example points in short would be:

No right to tax
Not national emergency
Past trade law disputes as precedent

Substructure: This question being a “will” question could tempt you to use a status quo/change/impact substructure. However, this question is not analyzing change, so a sq/ch substructure would be a poor decision. I would use an evaluative substructure, which roughly goes:

Criterion
Whether criterion is met
Impact

The criterion for this question would be which part of the law is being examined/discussed in the case. Largely, I would focus on Trump’s justification on the law being used, and what statute of the law that exactly encompasses. The “whether criterion is met” subpoint would be whether Trump’s actions are in violation of that statute. Using MP1 as an example, this is what the substructure would look like:

No right to tax
1. Wanted to tax under Section 1702 (“regulation of imports and exports”)
2. Regulation does not mean tax, thus no tariffs allowed
3. Rules that Trump is in violation, tariffs stop

This substructure is unorthodox, but for USX’ers dealing with legal issues at nationals (trust me, there are a lot), it’s important to grasp. Try flowing the other 2 points using the substructure.