Appeals Court Allows Trump’s Tariffs to Remain in Effect

The court said the case raises “issues of exceptional importance” that warrant an expedited review; oral arguments are set to take place on July 31.

President Donald Trump delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs during an event in the Rose Garden entitled "Make America Wealthy Again" at the White House in Washington on April 2, 2025. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

A federal appeals court ruled on June 10 that President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners could remain in effect amid ongoing litigation.

In its ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request to extend a stay on a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the tariffs on the grounds that Trump exceeded his authority by issuing sweeping levies on nearly all trade partners.

“Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors, the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances,” the court ruled.

The court said the case raises “issues of exceptional importance” that warrant an expedited review by the appeals court’s full panel of judges. Oral arguments are set to take place on July 31, according to the ruling.

Trump welcomed the appeals court’s decision, calling it “a great and important win” for the United States.

“A Federal Appeals Court has just ruled that the United States can use TARIFFS to protect itself against other countries,” he wrote social media platform Truth Social following the order.

The case centers on the 10 percent baseline tariff that Trump imposed on nearly all imports by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) on April 2. The IEEPA is a federal law that allows the president to regulate international trade during a national emergency.

Trump also imposed reciprocal tariffs on trade partners as part of an effort to address trade deficits, but the administration later paused the tariffs for 90 days to allow time for negotiations, while maintaining the baseline tariffs.

Before imposing the sweeping tariffs, Trump placed levies on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico to combat the flow of illegal immigrants and synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.

On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump’s tariffs from taking effect in response to lawsuits brought by a group of small businesses and attorneys general from 12 states. The federal appeals court later stayed the decision following the administration’s appeal, allowing the tariffs to take effect while it “considers the motions papers.”

The businesses had argued that the country’s decades-long practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA.

The states—including Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont—argued that Trump lacked the legal power to impose tariffs.

Government lawyers have said the tariffs “are central to the President’s foreign-policy and economic agendas” and that the lower court order would block efforts to eliminate the United States’ “exploding trade deficit” and to “reorient the global economy on an equal footing.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Fox News on June 1 that the tariffs would remain in place despite the legal woes, noting that Trump was given the authority by Congress to impose them.

“Rest assured, tariffs are not going away,” he said. “He has so many other authorities that even in the weird and unusual circumstance where this was taken away, we just bring on another or another or another. Congress has given this authority to the president, and he’s going to use it.”

Lutnick noted that the “$1.2 trillion trade deficit” in goods with other nations and “all the underlying implications” of those deficits constitute a national emergency.

Trump said on June 1 that if the courts rule against the administration on tariffs, it would allow other countries to hold the United States “hostage with their anti-American tariffs.”

“This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America,” he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Reuters and Jack Phillips contributed to this report.