What’s next for President Trump’s tariffs after whiplash court rulings?

ABC News

President Donald Trump’s steepest tariffs fell into legal limbo this week, casting uncertainty over a major swath of the president’s signature economic policy.
High-stakes court battle The court rulings this week set off a legal battle over the tariffs that could stretch on for more than a year and make its way to the Supreme Court, experts told ABC News.
The rulings against the levies in two federal courts – the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. — centered on Trump’s unprecedented invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act as a legal justification for tariffs.
For now, the fate of the tariffs at issue remains highly unclear, even after the appeals court temporarily reinstated them, Childress added.
“Importers who made the payments could be looking at one or even two years until those refunds get paid,” Childress added.

NONE

This week, a significant portion of President Donald Trump’s signature economic policy was put in jeopardy when his highest tariffs were filed in court.

A full resuscitation of the policy now faces significant challenges, experts told ABC News, but the Trump administration may eventually win a legal battle over the levies or seek other legal authorities to reimpose some of the tariffs.

Wide-ranging levies on dozens of nations that were unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony that Trump had dubbed “Liberation Day” were declared invalid by two different federal courts. Among other actions, the rulings invalidated a baseline 10 percent tax levied on almost all imports and 30 percent tariffs levied against China.

But on Thursday afternoon, a federal appeals court filed a motion to temporarily restore the tariffs, retaining them in effect while judges consider the underlying legal basis.

Experts explain what to expect from Trump’s tariffs going forward and what will happen to the tax money that has already been paid.

court battle with high stakes.

Experts told ABC News that the court decisions this week kick-started a legal battle over the tariffs that may last for over a year and end up before the Supreme Court.

two federal courts’ decisions opposing the levies, including the U. S. International Trade Court and the U.S. S. . District Court in Washington, D.C. — focused on Trump’s extraordinary use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to support tariffs.

Under the 1977 law, the president can use tools like trade embargoes and sanctions to halt any transactions with a foreign adversary that poses a threat. However, since the bill does not specifically allow tariffs, Trump is entering uncharted legal territory.

Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, told ABC News that these actions were “momentous to reverse a major initiative of the president of the United States.”. “The White House has suffered a significant setback. “,”.

Wolff added that while the decision does not specify how judges will evaluate the case’s merits, the temporary reinstatement of the tariffs permits the policy to continue while the legal battle is being fought.

Wolff stated, “It doesn’t change the circumstances in court all that much.”. The White House would undoubtedly prefer that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible. “..”.

Trump attacked the U.S. judges in a social media post. S. Court of International Trade and emphasized the advantages of his tariff strategy.

“Where do these first three Judges come from? How could they have possibly caused so much harm to the United States of America? Is it just a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What else could it be?” Trump asked.

The U.S. panel of three judges. S. . Three judges were appointed to the Court of International Trade: one by President Ronald Reagan, one by President Barack Obama, and one by President Trump.

Trump went on to say: “In this instance, Trillions of dollars have already started to pour into the United States due to my effective use of tariffs. S. A. from other nations—money that we couldn’t obtain without these tariffs. It is what separates the United States of America from being wealthy, successful, and prosperous. “,”.

Since Wednesday, U. S. Tariffs have brought in roughly $68 billion so far this year, but only a fraction of that money is due to levies that could be overturned, according to a Politico analysis.

Former trade official Patrick Childress, who served under both President Joe Biden and President Trump, told ABC News that the length of the legal battle may be determined by the decisions made by the two appeals courts looking into each of the Trump administration’s challenges.

It would be more likely that the case would take more than a year to get to the Supreme Court if the two appellate courts issued conflicting rulings, Childress said. However, a pair of comparable decisions at the appeals court level might expedite the case’s resolution, he added.

Childress added that even though the appeals court temporarily reinstated the tariffs in question, their future is still very uncertain.

According to Childress, “there’s still a very similar amount of uncertainty,”.

Other statutory authorities may be cited by new tariffs.

According to experts, the White House may look into other legal options in order to reinstate some of the tariffs if the courts decide against Trump’s tariffs.

The alternative legal statutes, however, would sometimes restrict the reach of the levies and necessitate drawn-out investigations at federal agencies.

The executive may use temporary tariff authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in response to a country’s unfavorable trade policy.

During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs on a broad range of Chinese goods using Section 301, which Biden used to support his own tariffs.

Because of their respective roles in bringing fentanyl to the United States, the White House may utilize Section 301 to reimpose tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico. S. Childress asserted. A broad application of Section 301 for tariffs on dozens of nations, however, might present administrative difficulties because every application of the measure necessitates a federal investigation into the purported abuses, he continued.

“A lot of investigations would be necessary, but it wouldn’t be impossible,” Childress stated.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is considering applying country-specific tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days under a different section of the Trade Act of 1974.

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962’s Section 232, which gives the president the authority to impose tariffs on a particular product if the Commerce Department determines that foreign production poses a threat to national security, could also be broadened by the White House.

Invoking the measure, Trump has already imposed 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles. According to Trump’s recent remarks, pharmaceuticals and semiconductor chips may be subject to additional sector-specific duties.

Businesses may be eligible for tax refunds.

If the tariffs are challenged in court, the government will reimburse importers who have already paid the relevant tariffs, experts told ABC News.

“Companies should get the money back if that’s the result — and it’s a lot of money,” Wolff stated.

According to Childress, the federal government will probably delay issuing refunds until the court cases are settled.

Childress went on to say, “Importers who made the payments could be looking at one or even two years before those refunds get paid.”.

In order to receive a refund, businesses must submit comprehensive information about their imports, including the date of shipment and the location of the products’ entry into the United States. S. .

Childress stated, “All of that information is necessary to get a refund later down the road.”.

scroll to top