In a nation where the boundaries of executive power have always been contested terrain, a federal appeals court has temporarily restored President Trump's tariffs while the deeper legal question — whether emergency powers law grants the president sweeping authority to reshape global trade — winds its way toward an almost certain Supreme Court reckoning. Two separate lower courts, drawing on judges from across the political spectrum, have concluded that no such authority exists, and that allowing it would quietly erase the limits Congress placed on the presidency. The pause is procedural, the c
Appeals court temporarily halts tariff rulings, allowing Trump's levies to remain in effect
The President cannot act unlawfully and then use the effects of having that action declared unlawful as a putative shield from judicial review.
Mark
Why did the appeals court pause the lower court's decision instead of ruling on the merits?
Mimi
Because that's how the system works when you're asking for a longer pause. The appeals court doesn't decide the whole case yet—it just decides whether to freeze the lower court's order while the appeal proceeds. It's a preliminary question, not the final one.
Mark
So the tariffs stay in place while all this plays out?
Mimi
Yes, for now. That's the practical effect. The lower court said the tariffs were unlawful, but the appeals court paused that ruling, so the tariffs keep working until at least June 9, when they'll argue about whether to pause them longer.
Mark
The administration seems confident they'll win. Why?
Mimi
They're reading the pause as a signal the appeals court might be sympathetic. But Schwab, the plaintiffs' attorney, says it's just procedure. The real question is whether the emergency powers law actually gives the president this much authority. No president has ever used it this way before.
Mark
What's Trump's backup plan if he loses?
Mimi
Navarro said they have other ways to do it. He didn't specify, but Trump has broad trade authority under other statutes. The emergency powers law isn't his only tool.
Mark
Why is the national security argument so important to the administration?
Mimi
Because it's their strongest legal argument. If they can convince a court that tariffs are tied to national security or foreign policy, the courts are more reluctant to second-guess the president. But the judges seem skeptical that reshaping global trade is actually a national security matter.
Mark
What happens on June 9?
Mimi
Both sides submit briefs arguing whether the pause should stay in place while the appeal continues. Then the court decides. But this is just the beginning—the real case will take months or longer, and the Supreme Court will probably get involved eventually.
Le Pouls
- Two federal courts — one a specialized trade tribunal, one a district court in Washington — independently ruled that Trump's use of emergency powers law to impose sweeping tariffs exceeds what Congress ever authorized.
- The appeals court's stay is a temporary lifeline for the administration, keeping the tariffs alive only until June 9, when both sides must argue whether the pause should hold through the full appeal.
- The White House declared victory while simultaneously signaling it has backup plans, with Peter Navarro warning that even a loss in court would not stop the tariff agenda.
- Trump publicly attacked the lower court judges on social media — including one he himself appointed — and called on the Supreme Court to intervene quickly, raising questions about the administration's relationship with judicial independence.
- The legal battle is converging toward the Supreme Court, where competing visions of presidential trade authority will likely be settled with consequences for every future administration.
In a nation where the boundaries of executive power have always been contested terrain, a federal appeals court has temporarily restored President Trump's tariffs while the deeper legal question — whether emergency powers law grants the president sweeping authority to reshape global trade — winds its way toward an almost certain Supreme Court reckoning. Two separate lower courts, drawing on judges from across the political spectrum, have concluded that no such authority exists, and that allowing it would quietly erase the limits Congress placed on the presidency. The pause is procedural, the conflict is constitutional, and the stakes reach far beyond any single tariff.
A federal appeals court moved Thursday to temporarily freeze lower court rulings that had blocked several of President Trump's tariffs, allowing the levies to stay in place at least until June 9, when both sides will submit arguments about whether the pause should extend through the full appeal. The move offered the administration a procedural reprieve, but left the core legal question entirely unresolved.
The day before, a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade — appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump himself — had ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs on trading partners. The administration read the appeals court's stay as vindication; the plaintiffs' attorney called it routine procedure and expressed confidence the pause would not hold.
On the same day, a separate federal judge in Washington reached a nearly identical conclusion. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that the emergency powers law does not permit a president to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reshape global trade — noting that no previous president had ever tried. His ruling applied narrowly to two small toy companies, but his reasoning was sweeping. When the administration argued that halting the tariffs would cause irreparable harm to foreign policy and national security, Contreras was unmoved, writing that a president cannot act unlawfully and then use the consequences of that unlawful action as a shield against judicial review.
Trump responded on Truth Social by questioning the judges' impartiality and urging the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings quickly and decisively — without acknowledging that one of the three judges he criticized was his own appointee. Peter Navarro, meanwhile, signaled the administration had alternative paths forward regardless of how the courts ruled.
The fundamental dispute — whether emergency powers law grants the executive branch authority that Congress never explicitly delegated — now moves through multiple courts simultaneously, with the Supreme Court widely expected to have the final word.
A federal appeals court moved Thursday to temporarily freeze lower court decisions that had blocked several of President Trump's tariffs, allowing the levies to remain in place while the legal battle continues. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a brief order staying the judgments and injunctions from the Court of International Trade, pausing that lower court's work at least until June 9, when both sides will submit arguments about whether the pause should extend through the full appeal.
The move amounts to a procedural reprieve for the administration, though the underlying legal question remains unresolved. A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade had ruled Wednesday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a decades-old law Trump cited to justify many of his tariff orders—does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose levies on trading partners. The panel, composed of judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself, found the statute simply does not delegate such sweeping power to the executive branch.
Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs, characterized the appeals court's pause as routine procedure. "We are confident the Federal Circuit will ultimately deny the government's motion," he said in a statement. But the White House read the decision as vindication. Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told Fox News the ruling was "a big victory for the president." Peter Navarro, the White House senior counsel for trade and manufacturing, went further, suggesting the administration had multiple paths forward regardless of how the courts ultimately ruled. "Even if we lose, we will do it another way," Navarro said, indicating that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would outline alternative approaches within two days.
Trump himself took to Truth Social to attack the lower court's three-judge panel, questioning their impartiality and suggesting their decision threatened national security. "Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America?" he wrote, before calling the ruling "so wrong, and so political" and urging the Supreme Court to reverse it "QUICKLY and DECISIVELY." The irony that Trump had appointed one of those three judges—Timothy M. Reif, who took the bench in 2019—went unmentioned.
The same day, a separate federal judge in Washington, D.C., reached a similar conclusion about Trump's tariff authority. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that several of the president's tariffs were unlawful, finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not permit the president to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reshape global trade. His decision applied narrowly to two educational toy makers who had sued, arguing the tariffs threatened their small businesses. But Contreras's reasoning was sweeping: he noted that no previous president had ever invoked the emergency powers law to impose tariffs, and allowing Trump to do so would effectively erase congressional limits on presidential power.
The administration had urged Contreras to block the ruling, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio arguing in court filings that halting the tariffs would cause "significant and irreparable harm" to U.S. foreign policy and national security because trade negotiations were in a "delicate state." Rubio and other cabinet officials warned that trading partners could retaliate, the U.S. could face global embarrassment, and the country's manufacturing capacity could weaken to the point where it could not produce weapons and resources needed for national defense. Contreras dismissed these arguments as self-inflicted. "The President cannot act unlawfully and then use the effects of having that action declared unlawful as a putative shield from judicial review," he wrote. The administration is appealing his ruling as well.
Trump has wielded tariffs and the threat of tariffs as a primary tool to pressure trading partners he accuses of unfair practices. The legal question now moving through multiple courts is whether the emergency powers statute actually permits such broad executive action, or whether Congress retains the power to constrain the president's tariff authority. The appeals court's temporary pause buys time, but the fundamental dispute over presidential power remains unresolved, with the Supreme Court likely to have the final say.
Citations marquantes
Even if we lose, we will do it another way.— Peter Navarro, White House senior counsel for trade and manufacturing
The President cannot act unlawfully and then use the effects of having that action declared unlawful as a putative shield from judicial review.— U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur NBC News ↗
Politics & Governance