The ongoing legal fracas surrounding President Trump’s tariffs is unfolding in two significant venues: a district court and the Court of International Trade. This battle has all the makings of a political thriller, complete with a cast of judges from different presidential administrations.
A pivotal moment came last month when a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that President Trump had overstepped his bounds by unilaterally imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The panel comprised judges Gary Katzmann (appointed by Obama), Timothy Reif (appointed by Trump), and Jane Restani (appointed by Reagan), showcasing a diverse ideological spectrum.
In response to this ruling, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice swiftly filed an appeal, a move that seems to echo the age-old adage: if at first you don’t succeed, litigate, litigate again.
Late last month, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated President Trump’s tariffs, counteracting the Court of International Trade’s decision that deemed the tariffs an overreach of authority. The court’s order stated, “The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted to the extent that the judgments and the permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in these cases are temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers,” as reported by .
On Tuesday, after further deliberation, the same appeals court ruled that President Trump’s broad tariffs would remain in force while the administration mounted its legal challenge. This is akin to a stay of execution for tariffs that many argue could have significant ramifications for both domestic and international markets.
The federal Circuit Court is scheduled to hear arguments on this case on July 31, meaning the tariffs will continue to be enforced in the interim. The En Banc order, which includes the entire slate of judges, granted the motions for stay pending appeal, indicating a willingness to consider the complexities of the case.
Notably, one judge did not participate in this ruling. The court’s order summarized the situation effectively: “Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors… the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances.”
