Why Trump’s Tariffs Were Deemed Unconstitutional and Overturned

Introduction

The announcement of a series of broad tariffs on a wide variety of goods was made by former President Donald Trump at the beginning of the year 2025. These measures were offered as weapons that might preserve employment in the United States, decrease trade imbalances, and provide a response to what the administration referred to as unfair trade practices by other nations.

The duties applied to products originating from practically all of the main trade partners, such as Canada, Mexico, China, and members of the European Union.

However, a federal court determined that the president had exceeded the constitutional power that he had in order to implement these levies, and this decision was made only a few weeks after they were announced.

Historical Context of U.S. Tariff Authority

In the United States, the authority to impose tariffs has been a joint responsibility between Congress and the president for a very long time. The fundamental power to establish “uniform Duties, Imposts, and Excises” is granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.

The executive branch, on the other hand, has been allowed a limited power to alter or impose tariffs in particular emergency circumstances or crises involving national security by Congress throughout the course of time.

One of these laws, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, gives the president the authority to take action in situations where imports pose a danger to the nation’s security. An further piece of legislation, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), provides the president with the ability to deal with exceptional and unusual threats that originate from outside the United States.

These statutes were only employed in a limited capacity and with a limited scope by presidents prior to Trump.

Trump’s Novel Use of Emergency Powers

It was the extent of Trump‘s tariffs in 2025 as well as the legal justification that was provided that made them stand out. Instead of relying simply on national security reasons as required under the earlier Trade Expansion Act, the administration placed a significant amount of weight on the International Energy and Economic Policy Act (IEEPA), which was meant to address risks like as the funding of terrorist organizations, the trafficking of drugs, and cyberattacks.

By invoking the International Economic and Trade Agreement (IEEPA), the president said that he had the ability to disrupt the equilibrium of trade in the event that foreign imports were regarded to be detrimental to the interests of the United States. In a short amount of time, critics said that this interpretation broadened the scope of the Act well beyond what was intended, so essentially allowing the president the authority to impose limitless taxes on imports.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

The Challenge in Court

Within a short period of time, two different organizations filed lawsuits to challenge the levies. One of the cases was brought up by a group of small firms who were dependent on components and materials that were imported.

The second one was presented by a consortium of state attorneys general, which was chaired by the highest-ranking legal official in Oregon. Each of the lawsuits was consolidated in the United States Court of International Trade, which is a specialized court that has jurisdiction over issues involving tariffs. The plaintiffs asserted that Congress had never granted the president the authority to levy tariffs that were applicable throughout the whole economy in accordance with the IEEPA.

According to them, the administration’s actions constitute a violation of the Constitution’s mandate that tariff laws be consistent throughout the nation and that any transfer of authority by Congress must contain explicit boundaries. They said that this was a violation of the Constitution.

Legal Reasoning on Non-Delegation

The non-delegation doctrine, which is a constitutional norm that has its origins in the separation of powers, played a pivotal role in the conclusion that the court made. In accordance with this idea, Congress is not permitted to transfer its legislative powers to another department of government without first establishing a “intelligible principle” that will serve as a guide for the appropriate use of such powers.

In its ruling dated May 28, 2025, a panel of three judges reached a unanimous decision that the International Energy and Environmental Protection Agency (IEEPA) did not include any such guiding concept for the establishment of tariff rates. Despite the fact that the legislation gives the president the authority to apply economic sanctions and freeze assets, it does not mention the possibility of increasing taxes on imports.

The court determined that congress, and not only the president, is responsible for determining tariff rates. This was due to the fact that the statute did not include any criteria, standards, or boundaries.

Uniformity and the Constitution

Additionally, the justices referred to the uniformity provision of the Constitution, which stipulates that all duties and imposts must be implemented in the same manner throughout the United States. In the event that the president decides to impose different tariff rates on other nations without the approval of Congress, he runs the danger of generating uneven treatment among importers entering the United States.

The court came to the conclusion that the principle of uniformity was breached when the executive branch was given the authority to customize tariffs on a country-by-country basis under IEEPA.

As an example, this would imply that a company in New York and a company in California that imports the same foreign product might be subject to differing taxes, depending on the policy aims of the president.

The Court’s Final Order

In light of these constitutional issues, the Court of International Trade decided to give the plaintiffs a summary decision in their favor. In order to prevent the tariffs that were being disputed from being enforced, it issued a national injunction.

Additionally, this meant that customs officers were no longer permitted to collect the newly imposed taxes. On the other hand, soon after the ruling was made, the government filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This court issued an administrative stay on the injunction on May 29, 2025, which means that the tariffs will remain in effect for the time being until the appeals process is completed. Following the submission of supplementary papers by both parties, the ultimate decision about the settlement may finally be made by the Supreme Court.

Reactions from All Sides

To a considerable extent, responses to the verdict were divided along party lines. The judgment was praised by those who supported it, stating that it was an important check on presidential overreach and a protection of constitutional order.

They issued a warning that unfettered presidential authority over tariffs might result in unstable trade policy and economic turmoil. The verdict has been portrayed as a politicized assault by unelected judges by critics, including many who are friends associated with Trump.

During the emergency situation, they contended that the president should have a great deal of leeway to make decisions and that prompt action was required to combat unfair commercial practices in other countries.

A more tempered perspective was taken by economists, who pointed out that extended uncertainty might be detrimental to supply chains and investment choices.

Implications for Future Trade Policy

The ruling is a key moment in the ongoing discussion on trade and presidential authority, regardless of the result of the appeal that is ultimately being heard. This lends credence to the notion that significant changes to tariff policy must be accompanied by explicit permission from Congress.

Moving ahead, it is quite probable that any president who wishes to impose extensive responsibilities would be need to collaborate closely with elected officials in order to design new laws or modify current ones.

It is possible that this may result in trade laws that are more stable and predictable; but, it may also slow down the government’s capacity to react rapidly to changes from the global economy.

Conclusion

The imposition of tariffs by President Trump in 2025 was overturned, which serves as a reminder that the checks and balances established by the Constitution continue to be in effect, even in fields as complex as trade law.

The courts have reiterated the separation of powers and the necessity that key decisions about taxation be made by Congress by rejecting the administration’s interpretation of the Internal Energy and Environmental Protection Act (IEEPA) as being too broad.

In spite of the fact that the appeal is still being heard by the courts, the stakes continue to be very high for the United States’ trade policy, foreign relations, and the power dynamic inside the federal government. At the end of the day, this story highlights the ongoing conflict that exists between the requirements of democratic accountability and the need of prompt action by the executive branch.