US President Donald Trump can keep collecting import taxes for now, an appeals court has said, a day after a trade ruling found the bulk of his global tariffs to be illegal.
A federal appeals court granted a bid from the White House to temporarily suspend the lower court’s order, which ruled that Trump had overstepped his power by imposing the duties.
Wednesday’s judgement from the US Court of International Trade drew the ire of Trump officials, who called it an example of judicial overreach.
Small businesses and a group of states had challenged the measures, which are at the heart of Trump’s agenda and have shaken the world economy.Trump blasted the international trade court’s ruling on Thursday in a social media post, writing: “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.”
Wednesday’s ruling by the little-known trade court in New York would void tariffs imposed by Trump in February on goods from China, Mexico and Canada, which he justified as a move intended to address a fentanyl smuggling.
The lower court’s decision would also dismiss a blanket 10% import tax that Trump unveiled last month on goods from countries around the world, together with higher so-called reciprocal tariffs on trade partners, including the EU and China.
The 1977 law Trump invoked to impose many of the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not allow for such sweeping levies, the lower court said.
But its ruling did not affect Trump’s tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium, which were implemented under another law.
The White House has suspended or revised parts of many of its duties while trade negotiations grind on.
But the appeals court decision allow the tariffs to be used for now while the case is litigated. The next hearing is on 5 June.
Another federal court overseeing a separate tariffs case reached a similar conclusion on Thursday to the trade court.
Judge Rudolph Contreras found the duties went beyond the president’s authority, but that ruling only applied to a toy company in the case.