The stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown is set after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of former President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs were unlawful.
Trump imposed a series of tariffs, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 as justification. He declared national emergencies over trade deficits and drug trafficking to impose levies on countries, including China, Canada, Mexico, and nearly all U.S. trading partners.
However, the appeals court found that the IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs, stating:
“The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs.” — Majority opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals
The court emphasized that the Constitution vests tariff authority in Congress, and any delegation of that power must be explicit and limited.
Trump’s tariff strategy has been framed as economic populism: a blunt-force tool to punish trading partners, protect American jobs, and renegotiate global deals. But the court’s decision makes clear what many economists and legal scholars have long argued: tariffs are not a presidential plaything. They are a core component of Congressional power, and invoking emergency statutes to bypass legislative oversight is not just poor governance—it’s unlawful.
The landmark decision that challenges the legal foundation of Trump’s aggressive trade policy has the President fuming. He condemned the decision, warning of dire consequences if the ruling stands:
“If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.” — Donald Trump, Truth Social
He vowed to appeal, asserting that the Supreme Court would ultimately uphold his authority:
“Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use [tariffs] to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!” — Donald Trump, Truth Social
This is not a partisan squabble. It’s a structural question about how trade policy is made in a democracy. When a president unilaterally imposes taxes on imports—without Congressional approval—it undermines the very system of checks and balances that defines our republic.
Legal experts and former officials have weighed in on the implications:
“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy.” — Ashley Akers, former DOJ trial lawyer
The decision could also lead to financial consequences, including potential refunds of billions in collected tariffs. The Justice Department warned that striking down the tariffs could cause “financial ruin” for the U.S. Treasury.
The court allowed the tariffs to remain in place until October 14, 2025.
Notably, the ruling does not affect tariffs imposed under other laws, such as those on steel and aluminum imports, which are justified by national security concerns.
For small businesses, global partners, and American consumers, this ruling offers a moment of clarity. The uncertainty and volatility caused by erratic tariff policies have real costs—higher prices, disrupted supply chains, and diplomatic strain. Restoring legislative oversight is not only a legal necessity but also an economic imperative.
As the case heads toward a likely showdown in the Supreme Court, the stakes are high. Will the judiciary reaffirm Congress’s role in trade policy, or will it grant the executive branch sweeping powers to tax and retaliate at will?
The answer will shape not just the future of tariffs, but the integrity of American governance.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.