Donald Trump’s tariff regime is in the dock. That the US President’s desire to slap disproportionate taxes and tariffs is equally biting the domestic sector goes without saying. The ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, declaring the executive decisions of the presidency ‘illegal’, has opened a Pandora’s Box of litigations, and put economic vibrancy of the world’s superpower in dire straits. Though the court was lenient in letting the tariff stay in vogue till October, the reprimanding of the country’s top authority by pronouncing the tariff decisions as unwise has made a strong point at home and abroad. The jury has found that Trump has exceeded his powers by invoking emergency authority to levy sweeping global tariffs, which is unwarranted under normal circumstances of lawful governance.
While the 7-4 majority dictum is set to be challenged in the Supreme Court, it will lead to a pause-factor on deals that are underway with several other nations. At the same time, it would stir lobbying at home from vested interests who want to browbeat Trump over the economic horizon. It is also a reality that Trump’s executive decisions have often landed with the apex court, such as those concerning immigration and cut in governmental spending. This tariff issue, however, is unlikely to be set aside. The reason is that it pertains to governmental executive authority, and dictating the presidency on its profile policies is quite un-American. Secondly, there are no precedents before the court of law to take cognisance of such decisions.
The court’s stay order on tariffs has, nonetheless, saved the administration from diplomatic embarrassment. It merely confined itself by noting that Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs and those imposed over trafficking were un-authorised. It also said it was not addressing if Trump’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy or deciding whether IEEPA authorises any tariffs at all. The prosecution side will have to do some great digging to prove that the president cannot sit in judgment while writing an economic policy, and that is an arduous task.
