The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision on Friday declaring that President Donald Trump's implementation of certain tariffs was beyond the scope of presidential authority. This ruling specifically targeted the trafficking and reciprocal tariffs imposed during Trump's term.

The court's decision emphasized that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the power to enact tariffs as done by Trump. By issuing these tariffs, Trump was found to have overstepped boundaries that the Constitution reserves for Congress, particularly under Article I which delineates congressional powers.

In response to the court's ruling, Neal Kaytal, attorney for the plaintiffs, praised the decision, highlighting its adherence to constitutional principles. "It’s a win for the American Constitution, that our founders basically said that decisions that are major over things like taxation have to be done by the Congress, not by the president and the stroke of his pen [...] I think the court overwhelmingly today, in a 7-4 decision, rejected President Trump’s notion that he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants," Kaytal remarked.

Despite the court's decision, President Trump took to Truth Social to express his defiance and hint at further legal action. "ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed…If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak…Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!" Trump stated.

The appellate court has put a hold on its order until October 14, allowing time for the expected appeal from the Trump Administration.

The legal challenges began in April when five small businesses brought a complaint to the US Court of International Trade. They argued that Trump’s executive orders, which modified Congress’s established tariff schedules for Mexico, Canada, and China, had caused them severe financial harm. The private plaintiffs were later joined by twelve states, raising objections to both the reciprocal and trafficking tariffs.

This recent affirmation by the US Court of Appeals marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal scrutiny of presidential powers related to trade and economic policy.