Judges on a U.S. federal appellate panel voiced sharp doubts Thursday about President Donald Trump’s legal basis for some of the most sweeping tariffs of his presidency, raising pointed questions about whether emergency powers were wrongly stretched to justify trade restrictions.
The 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington took turns grilling Trump administration attorney Brett Shumate over the claim that the president had authority to unilaterally impose tariffs without congressional sign-off, specifically by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law passed in 1977.
Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna was among those most skeptical of the argument, remarking bluntly, “IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere.”
RELATED STORIES
READ ALSO: Trump revives Presidential Fitness Test, shifts youth focus back to athletic excellence
Shumate conceded during the 99-minute hearing that “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but maintained the administration’s actions were legally sound. He reportedly argued the law granted the president “broad and flexible” powers to act during a national emergency, adding that “the president is not asking for unbounded authority.”
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
Yet judges pushed back forcefully on whether Trump’s use of IEEPA to levy tariffs truly aligned with its intended scope. Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore questioned the logic behind using tariffs to address a military emergency, posing a hypothetical: “If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness, and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with (it).”
The law, which allows a president to freeze assets and block financial transactions amid national emergencies, was originally enacted by President Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked in crises like 9/11 and the Syrian war. Trump claimed the U.S. trade imbalance rose to the level of such emergencies.
But Neal Katyal, attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs, accused the administration of an extreme overreach. He described the move as a “breathtaking” assertion of executive authority, arguing it effectively gave the president unchecked power: “The president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”
READ ALSO: Trump slaps India with new tariffs over Russian oil ties
Though the panel did not deliver a decision from the bench, legal observers anticipate the case will ultimately reach the Supreme Court. For now, the fate of the contested tariffs lies with the appeals court.
Trump, meanwhile, addressed the case on Truth Social, praising his legal team and warning of dire consequences if tariffs weren’t part of the national defense strategy. “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE “DEAD,” WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
In earlier court proceedings, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade found the tariffs unlawful, ruling in May that Trump had overstepped his executive authority. The appeals court now weighs that decision as the broader legal battle continues, and as Trump’s tariff-heavy trade approach remains central to his political platform.
READ ALSO: “He stole people who worked for me” – Trump explains why he cut ties with Epstein
