Customs duties imposed by the president Donald Trump are facing a decisive review before the United States Court of Appeals in Washington. This court must determine whether the executive branch exceeded its constitutional prerogatives by imposing large-scale trade taxes, particularly against China, Canada, and Mexico. This hearing marks a key moment in the legal battle over the controversial use of presidential powers over foreign trade.
In April, Donald Trump introduced so-called "reciprocal" tariffs targeting a wide range of trading partners, intensifying an already aggressive tariff strategy. These measures immediately drew opposition from several American small businesses as well as twelve states with Democratic governors, which filed two separate lawsuits. They argue that the tariffs violate the Constitution, which grants Congress—not the president—the power to impose tariffs.
The plaintiffs also challenge the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump invoked to justify his actions. They argue that the law does not allow for such an expansion of presidential powers, particularly in the absence of a clear or immediate national threat. The court's decision could therefore redefine the limits of presidential authority over US trade policy.
The Court of Appeals has summoned all of its active judges for the hearing: eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three by Republicans. The panel will hear arguments beginning at 10 a.m. Washington time. This is the first-ever test before an appeals court regarding the tariffs unilaterally imposed by Trump during his second term.
The case comes as the president prepares a new round of tariff increases on nearly all U.S. imports. He continues to present tariffs as a central lever of his foreign policy, using them to punish what he considers unfair trade practices and strengthen the United States' position in international negotiations.
The outcome of this hearing could have major repercussions, both for trade relations and the balance of power in Washington. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would significantly weaken the president's economic leverage, while a ruling in Trump's favor would pave the way for increased—and potentially lasting—use of executive powers in the area of trade.
