NEW YORK — The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) has ruled that Donald Trump violated the law by using presidential executive powers to impose broad-based import tariffs.

The ruling pertains to import duties of several dozen percent on goods entering the US, announced on 2 April, including additional tariffs on products from Mexico, Canada, and China.

The Trump administration defended the move as a response to an “extraordinary economic threat.” However, the court found that this justification did not meet the threshold for a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), according to The Guardian on Friday (30/5).

“The statute is not a tool for waging unilateral trade wars,” stated the panel of three CIT judges—appointed respectively by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump.

The lawsuit was brought by the non-profit Liberty Justice Center (JLC) and several US states, including Oregon, Arizona, and New York, on behalf of small businesses harmed by the unilateral tariff policy.

Although the US government immediately filed an appeal and the tariffs remain in effect for now, the ruling is seen as weakening Trump’s position in various trade negotiations, including with the European Union, China, Japan, and India.

Trump had previously threatened to impose 50% tariffs on EU imports starting 1 June, but that plan was postponed to 9 July.

In light of the ruling, Brussels may now see a weakness in the White House’s approach to trade talks.

Investors welcomed the decision, seeing it as a step toward reducing uncertainty and easing pressure on global trade.

However, some analysts warned that the legal uncertainty itself could dent market confidence in the short term.

Although the court found IEEPA cannot be used, Trump has not completely lost his policy tools.

According to Jordan Rochester, an analyst at Nomura, “Trump still has alternative paths to impose tariffs, though not as swiftly or powerfully as under IEEPA.”

These legal alternatives include Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act—which Trump has already used for steel, aluminium, and automotive tariffs—as well as Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, and Sections 301 and 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act.

Trump’s fiscal agenda has also come under scrutiny. He previously hoped the additional revenue from tariffs could help fund sweeping tax cuts, under the newly passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in the US House of Representatives.

The Trump administration is preparing to take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Meanwhile, the UK government has confirmed it will proceed with ratifying the 8 May trade agreement with the US, despite the fact that Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff policy was a key basis for the deal. (EF/KR/ZH)