Reverse, reverse: Yesterday, I reported that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade had issued a ruling that would put a pause on President Donald Trump's tariffs announced on "Liberation Day," as well as those levied on Canada, Mexico, and China the month prior.
"The decision would have forced the Trump administration to unwind many of the president's steep tariffs over the next 10 days, but the government quickly petitioned a federal appeals court to intervene," reports The New York Times. The administration "asked a panel of judges to hold that order at bay while it weighed the administration's fuller arguments that its tariffs were lawful." This bid was successful, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a pause yesterday, allowing the tariffs to remain in place. This essentially gives the courts more time to consider the legal issues at play and to determine what type of authority the administration has, in a case that will probably be ruled on by the Supreme Court.
The case hinges on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that Trump has invoked, allows him to levy tariffs. The IEEPA gives the executive sweeping authority "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy or economy" of the country. Trump has, of course, made bold "national security" arguments in an attempt to politically make the case for tariffs: First, the flow of fentanyl through our country's borders justified the imposition of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and—most especially—China. Then, national security arguments were used to justify further ratcheting-up of tariffs on China, with the administration arguing that the risk of relations with China souring at some point in the future means we must take steps to reshore critical industries right now. And, more broadly, the current trade deficit we run with many other countries has been portrayed as a threat to American competitiveness—whether true or false.
