Judges vs. Trump: Second Court Rules His Tariffs Are Illegal

In a significant escalation of the legal war over former President Donald Trump’s hallmark trade agenda, a second federal court has ruled against the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs—potentially dealing a fatal blow to one of the signature economic tools of Trump’s presidency.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, sitting in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction this week barring the federal government from collecting tariffs from two education supply companies—Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc.—which manufacture many of their goods in Asia. The companies argued that the tariffs, enacted under Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” economic doctrine, unlawfully burdened American importers without proper congressional authorization.

The judge sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the administration overstepped its legal authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision echoes a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which similarly struck down the tariffs, asserting they were imposed without a sufficient national emergency and in violation of statutory limits.

Executive vs. Judiciary: A Constitutional Standoff Brewing?

The two rulings—one from a specialized trade court and another from a federal district court—signal growing judicial resistance to the Trump administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority in trade matters. At the heart of the dispute is whether the White House can invoke emergency powers to restructure U.S. trade policy, sidestepping both Congress and judicial oversight.

In response, the Trump-aligned Department of Justice has announced it will appeal both decisions. Government attorneys are seeking immediate stays on the injunctions, warning that lifting the tariffs prematurely could cause “irreparable harm” to national security and hinder the U.S.’s strategic leverage in negotiations with foreign powers, including China.

“If left standing, these rulings would severely handicap the executive branch’s ability to respond swiftly and decisively in a global economic landscape increasingly shaped by hostile actors,” a senior administration official said on background. “This is not just about tariffs—it’s about defending the office of the presidency.”

A New Legal Front — Or a Strategic Recalibration?

With two federal courts now rejecting its legal rationale, the Trump team is said to be weighing alternative legal paths to reimpose similar tariffs should the appeals fail. According to sources familiar with internal discussions, these include invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days without needing to declare a national emergency or conduct formal investigations.

Other options include Section 301—used previously by Trump during the U.S.–China trade war—and the more obscure Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which grants the president authority to impose retaliatory tariffs against countries deemed discriminatory toward U.S. exports.

Economic & Political Reactions

The legal setbacks have sparked sharp divisions among political and economic stakeholders. While business groups and free-trade advocates have applauded the rulings as a check on what they view as unilateral and destabilizing executive action, Trump loyalists and economic nationalists see the courts as overstepping their role.

“This is yet another example of activist judges interfering with a president’s constitutional duty to protect American industry,” said a Trump campaign surrogate in a Fox News appearance. “We will fight this to the Supreme Court if necessary.”

Meanwhile, Wall Street responded positively to the rulings. Major indices, including the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, closed higher on the day of the latest court decision, as investors bet that a rollback of unpredictable tariff policies could ease international trade tensions and reduce import costs.

What Comes Next?

The Trump administration’s appeal process is now underway, with observers anticipating a potential fast-track path to the Supreme Court. A final ruling could redefine the contours of presidential power in trade and emergency economic policy, with ramifications reaching far beyond Trump’s political orbit.

As the legal battle deepens, the question before the nation is no longer just about the legitimacy of specific tariffs—but about the foundational limits of executive authority in shaping America’s role in the global economy.