The White House is working at full speed to save President Donald Trump’s trade strategy following a major legal defeat on Wednesday, when a federal court struck down most of his import tariffs. On the same day, administration lawyers requested an emergency stay from the U.S. Court of International Trade. On Thursday, they filed a similar request with the D.C. Court of Appeals. In their 124-page brief, they warned that if those courts do not block the ruling, they will appeal to the Supreme Court as early as Friday to keep the tariffs in place.
This marks the most significant legal setback of Trump’s second term.
“In the absence of a stay from the [Trade] Court, the United States plans to request emergency relief from the Supreme Court tomorrow to prevent irreparable harm to national security and the economy,” the brief states. It includes extensive annexes laying out the administration’s arguments.
The government claims that enforcing the ruling would unravel several “successful agreements” President Trump has reached with foreign nations. However, no binding trade agreements have been signed under Trump’s second term. His only major moves have been a non-binding agreement with the United Kingdom and a partial rollback of tariffs previously imposed on China.
Repeating Old Arguments, Facing New Resistance
The legal document revisits commonly used points: that courts do not possess the power to question a president’s choice to use emergency authority, and that historical examples—specifically President Nixon’s emergency tariffs—validate Trump’s measures. Nevertheless, the ruling directly tackles that historical example and determines that it, in fact, bolsters the argument opposing Trump’s understanding.
El gobierno advierte que sin una suspensión, “aunque los aranceles sean finalmente confirmados, el daño a los esfuerzos diplomáticos y económicos de EE.UU. podría ser irreversible”. Afirman que las pérdidas de ingresos serían irrecuperables y que las negociaciones internacionales se verían gravemente afectadas.
A Legal Setback for Trump’s Trade Tariff Policy
La Corte de Comercio Internacional de los Estados Unidos determinó por unanimidad que los amplios aranceles de Trump contravenían la Constitución y la ley federal, afirmando que el presidente había sobrepasado su autoridad al utilizar poderes de emergencia. La decisión anuló aranceles clave: un 25% sobre importaciones de Canadá y México, un 20% sobre productos chinos y los llamados “aranceles recíprocos” aplicados globalmente, que fueron inicialmente proclamados durante el controvertido “Día de la Liberación” y luego reducidos al 10% bajo la presión del mercado.
Political Turmoil: Assaults on the Justice System
The White House spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, criticized the decision, labeling it as an instance of “judicial overextension” and asserting that it hinders the president’s negotiation capabilities. “The United States is unable to operate effectively if President Trump—or any president—faces disruption in sensitive diplomatic and trade initiatives due to activist judges,” she stated.
Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller expanded his comments on social media: “We are experiencing judicial despotism,” he posted on Thursday evening. “The judicial takeover is rampant.”
Kevin Hassett, líder del Consejo Económico Nacional, dijo a Fox Business
he is sure the decision will be reversed on appeal. Although Trump possesses legal avenues to implement additional tariffs, Hassett mentioned, “We currently have no plans to proceed because we firmly believe this ruling is incorrect.” Leavitt, nonetheless, consistently stressed that Trump still holds those capabilities, allowing for potential future measures.
The Supreme Court Could Determine
At this moment, the Supreme Court has a 6–3 majority leaning towards conservatism, with three of the conservative judges having been appointed by Trump. Nevertheless, this does not ensure a positive decision. The original verdict was unanimous, endorsed by judges appointed by Trump, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama, each contributing to the decision’s cross-party credibility.
Senior Cabinet Members Caution About Worldwide Repercussions
In an unusual action, four members of Trump’s Cabinet presented declarations to the Trade Court prior to its decision, cautioning about significant consequences if the president’s power to impose tariffs were annulled.
Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick claimed that the ruling would “weaken” the latest trade talks. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent cautioned that it might “disrupt current negotiations” and lead to counteractions. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer expressed concern that international counterparts might “worsen competitive imbalances” to the detriment of American exporters. Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted that the court mandate would lead to “severe and lasting damage to U.S. diplomatic and national defense interests.”
The government still needs to submit its complete appeal concerning the case’s merits but is using every legal and political strategy to maintain Trump’s tariff system—at least for the time being—in front of the nation’s top court.