Topline

Wednesday’s ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s tariffs as unlawful may not be the end for the president’s “Liberation Day” orders, as it’s still possible an appeals court could put the tariffs back into effect and the president could use other laws to reinstate the import fees—though those would likely be more limited.

It’s possible. The case will now go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will decide whether or not to uphold Wednesday’s ruling, and whether to put the tariffs back in effect while the appeals process plays out. Legal experts cited by Bloomberg in April noted the Federal Circuit has historically been deferential to presidents when it comes to tariffs, though it still remains to be seen how the court will respond to Trump’s “Liberation Day” fees. Attorneys for the businesses that challenged Trump in court told reporters Thursday they were “guardedly optimistic” about their chances at the appeals court, given how strongly in favor of their legal position the Court of International Trade was. It’s likely any ruling by the Federal Circuit will then get appealed to the Supreme Court, and it remains to be seen how the 6-3 conservative court could rule.

There are other laws that Trump could use that more explicitly allow presidents to impose tariffs, but they have more limitations than how Trump tried to wield power using IEEPA. Trump could impose tariffs of up to 15% under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, but those could only remain in place for 150 days. It would require congressional approval to extend them past that date. Trump could also impose tariffs on specific sectors under Section 232 of the Trade Act—as he’s already done with steel and aluminum—or his administration could impose tariffs under Section 301 of the law, which allows tariffs on countries that violate trade agreements or take steps that are “unjustifiable” or “unreasonable” for international commerce. The Trump administration would have to conduct investigations before it could impose tariffs under that provision, however, which would take some time. One of the most flexible ways that Trump could try to reinstate tariffs would be through Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows presidents to put up to 50% tariffs on countries that “discriminate” against the U.S. That tariff provision has never been used in practice, according to Goldman Sachs analysts, and Democrats have already introduced legislation to repeal it, though that’s unlikely to pass a GOP-controlled Congress.

The Court of International Trade’s ruling gives the Trump administration 10 days to wind down its tariffs before the order takes effect. That means the federal government can still charge tariffs on foreign imports during that period, but those fees would then have to be refunded unless an appeals court lets the tariffs stay in effect, attorneys representing the lawsuit plaintiffs told reporters Thursday. The court’s ruling also only specifically impacts Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, so other tariffs that he imposed before those took effect, like those on steel and aluminum and on goods from China, Canada and Mexico, will remain in effect.

Since the Court of International Trade declared Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs to be unlawful, that means the tariffs the government has already collected under those orders are eligible to be refunded, plaintiffs’ attorneys told reporters Thursday. It’s still unclear what the logistics could look like for that in practice, however, and those seeking refunds may have to see how things play out in the appeals court first. The Trump administration acknowledged the refunds in its request asking the court to keep the tariffs in effect while the appeals process plays out, claiming that businesses who have to pay tariffs won’t be harmed because the government “will issue refunds as directed by the Court.” (Victor Schwartz, who runs one of the businesses that sued over the tariffs, strongly disputed that argument to reporters on Thursday, saying, “That’s just ridiculous … We don’t just have cash laying around.”)

Trump imposed tariffs of 10% and up on nearly all countries on April 2, after long threatening sweeping tariffs as a centerpiece of his economic agenda—despite warnings from economists that levying the tariffs could raise prices for consumers and harm the economy. The president later backed down from the worst of his tariffs, issuing a 90-day pause while his administration conducted trade negotiations, but left a 10% baseline tariff in effect on foreign imports, with higher rates for Chinese goods. The president has stood by his tariffs even as they’ve roiled the global economy and caused markets to plunge, and threatened new 50% tariffs last week on imports from the European Union and 25% fees on Apple products. Wednesday’s ruling came in response to two lawsuits brought against Trump’s tariffs by small businesses and Democratic-led states, and other lawsuits over the import fees still remain pending. In their ruling Wednesday, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs violated IEEPA, writing, “Any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.” The panel included judges appointed by presidents from both parties, including a Trump appointee.