Trump's tariff bill has been appealed to the Supreme Court, putting US trade policy at a crossroads

On August 29, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled by a 7-4 vote that most of the global tariff policies implemented by the Trump administration were illegal, determining that they exceeded the president's legal authority. The court allowed the existing tariff measures to remain in effect until October 14, 2025, so that the US government could appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump immediately responded that the ruling was "wrong" and warned that if the tariffs were removed, it would bring a "total disaster" to the United States.

This ruling targets the tariff policies announced by Trump on April 2, 2025, including a 30% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% tariff on certain goods from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% general tariff on most US imports. The court clearly pointed out that Trump's act of imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act exceeded the legal authority of the president. Although the law authorizes the president to take economic measures in emergency situations, it does not explicitly grant the power to impose additional tariffs.

This lawsuit was filed by the Center for Freedom and Justice on behalf of five small businesses affected by tariffs. These enterprises come from manufacturing, retail and agriculture, all of which stated that the tariff policy has seriously affected their business operations. The International Trade Court pointed out that the US Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to regulate foreign trade, and the emergency economic power claimed by the president cannot override the power of Congress.

According to U.S. customs data, the Trump administration's tariff policy has affected the import of goods from over 100 countries. After the implementation of these policies, the average tariff rate on imported goods in the United States rose from 3.5% to 12.8%. Since the tariff policy was implemented on April 2nd, the government has collected more than 30 billion US dollars in additional tariff revenue. Business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce welcomed the court's ruling, saying that the tariff policy has brought uncertainties to enterprises. Data from the National Manufacturers Association shows that tariffs have led to an average 15% increase in manufacturing input costs.

The tariff policy of the Trump administration has also aroused strong reactions internationally. Many countries have taken countermeasures and imposed retaliatory tariffs on American goods. Eu data shows that the export volume of US goods such as whisky, motorcycles and jeans dropped by 15% after being subject to retaliatory tariffs. The report of the United States Department of Agriculture shows that the overall export of agricultural products has declined by 12%.

Us Treasury Secretary Janet Boussant and Secretary of State Rubio warned that ruling the president's tariff policy illegal would "cause serious diplomatic embarrassment" and nullify monthes-long negotiations with regions such as the European Union, Japan and South Korea. Commerce Secretary Lutnik said the unfavorable ruling would "send a signal to the world that the United States lacks the determination to defend its own economy and national security."

The US government must appeal to the Supreme Court by October 14. The Supreme Court needs to decide whether to accept this case. If it does, a final ruling will be made in 2026. Legal experts believe that if the Supreme Court accepts this case, its judgment will affect the legal basis of the United States' trade policy. Among the current nine justices of the United States Supreme Court, six are conservatives and may tend to support the president in expanding the exercise of executive power.

If the Supreme Court upholds the original ruling, the Trump administration may still extend the tariff policy through other legal tools. Former senior official of the US Department of Commerce, Reinch, said, "The government has been expecting this outcome and is formulating Plan B to maintain tariffs through other regulations." If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the original ruling, the US government may have to return more than 100 billion US dollars of tariffs already collected, including principal and interest.

The significance of this case goes beyond tariffs themselves; it touches upon the core issue of the separation of powers in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court's ruling will redefine the scope of power of the US President in trade policy. This is not only a legal battle over tariffs, but also a major debate on the separation of powers under the US Constitution, and its outcome will have a profound impact on the global trade system.