Tag: Liberation Day tariffs

On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) delivered a landmark ruling invalidating the broad “Liberation Day” tariffs that President Donald J. Trump had imposed without congressional approval. The court held that the president “exceeded any authority … to regulate importation by means of tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), concluding that “Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.” This decision strikes at the core of longstanding tensions over separation of powers, national emergency authorities, and the evolving scope of executive discretion in U.S. trade policy.

On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade delivered a landmark ruling that temporarily enjoins President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs—scheduled to take effect April 2—on constitutional grounds. These measures, imposed under the guise of curbing illegal immigration and combating drug trafficking, would have levied 10 percent duties on all imports from countries with which the United States runs trade deficits, and up to 25 percent on specific sectors. Instead, the court found that the president overstepped his authority under both the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Article I of the Constitution, which vests Congress with exclusive power over trade and commerce.

On May 28, 2025, the United States Court of International Trade issued a landmark ruling in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, striking down the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed by former President Donald J. Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These sweeping levies—ranging from a baseline 10 % duty on most imports to as high as 145 % on Chinese goods—were announced via Executive Order 14257 on April 2, 2025, and justified as an emergency response to persistent trade imbalances and threats to domestic manufacturing. However, the court found that the president had exceeded the authority delegated by Congress, permanently enjoining enforcement of the tariffs and ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection to cease collections under the challenged orders (Restani, J., May 28, 2025).

Inflation Eases in April 2025: In April 2025, the U.S. economy experienced a notable moderation in inflation, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rising by 0.2% from the previous month and 2.3% year-over-year—the lowest annual rate since February 2021 . This deceleration in inflation comes amidst a complex economic landscape marked by recent tariff implementations and ongoing trade negotiations.

In April 2025, President Donald Trump introduced a series of sweeping policy measures that have significantly impacted both domestic and international landscapes. These measures include the imposition of extensive tariffs on foreign imports and a stringent crackdown on sanctuary cities within the United States. The tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025, and referred to by the administration as "Liberation Day" tariffs, aim to protect American manufacturing and address trade imbalances, particularly with China. Concurrently, the administration has intensified efforts to enforce federal immigration laws by targeting sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump launched a dramatic recalibration of American trade policy, issuing Executive Order 14257, which levied a 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the United States, with targeted rates as high as 54% on specific nations, most notably China. Declaring the day as "Liberation Day," the administration framed this bold action as an economic emancipation from foreign trade dependencies. The announcement sent immediate shockwaves through global markets: the S&P 500 registered its steepest one-day drop since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, and bond markets reacted with heightened volatility. These events prompted fierce debate among economists, legal scholars, and political strategists.