In a significant blow to former President Donald Trump’s economic legacy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday struck down his 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs, ruling that his administration overreached in its use of emergency powers to impose them.
The three-judge panel voted 2-1 that Trump’s invocation of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act—which allows presidents to restrict imports deemed threats to national security—was applied too broadly and without sufficient evidence of genuine security concerns.
“This ruling fundamentally reshapes the debate about executive authority in trade policy,” said Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s former U.S. Trade Representative, in a phone interview. “The court has effectively narrowed a power presidents have wielded for decades.”
The decision impacts approximately $350 billion in imported goods annually, potentially lowering costs for American manufacturers and consumers while creating uncertainty for domestic steel producers who benefited from the protections.
The tariffs, which imposed 25% duties on steel and 10% on aluminum imports, were centerpieces of Trump’s “America First” trade agenda. His administration argued they were necessary to preserve domestic production capacity for military equipment and critical infrastructure.
Judge Merrick Garland, writing for the majority, stated the administration failed to demonstrate a “direct and measurable connection between these broad tariffs and specific national security objectives.” The court found the Commerce Department’s original analysis “relied on economic theories rather than concrete security threats.”
The ruling comes amid renewed debate about presidential power following the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States. Legal experts suggest this creates a more complex landscape for executive authority.
“We’re seeing a judicial recalibration of presidential powers across multiple fronts,” explained Catherine Yang, constitutional scholar at Georgetown Law. “Courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize claims of executive authority, particularly when they have significant economic implications.”
Industry reactions split predictably along sectoral lines. The American Iron and Steel Institute expressed “profound disappointment” and warned of potential job losses. Meanwhile, the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which represents industries that use steel as inputs, called it “a victory for market principles and manufacturing competitiveness.”
The Biden administration now faces complex choices. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre indicated they are “reviewing the decision carefully” while reaffirming the administration’s commitment to “protecting American workers and critical industries.”
Data from the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggests the tariffs increased steel prices by approximately 8-12% during their implementation, costing downstream manufacturers an estimated $5.6 billion annually. These costs were largely passed to consumers.
The ruling potentially impacts other trade actions predicated on national security justifications, including restrictions on Chinese technology and certain foreign investments. Legal scholars suggest presidents will now need to develop more robust security rationales when using such authorities.
Congressional reaction followed partisan lines. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) called the decision “judicial overreach into trade policy that Congress delegated to the executive.” Meanwhile, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) praised it as “a necessary check on executive power that had expanded beyond recognition.”
The case originated from a challenge by steel importers and foreign producers who argued the tariffs caused economic harm without addressing legitimate security threats. Their legal team successfully demonstrated that the administration’s security justifications were primarily economic in nature.
The ruling becomes effective in 45 days unless the Supreme Court issues a stay. The Justice Department has not yet announced whether it will appeal, though legal experts consider it likely given the significant implications for executive authority.
For American businesses caught in international supply chains, the decision introduces new variables into already complex planning. “Companies have built business models around these tariffs for five years,” noted Jennifer Hillman, former member of the WTO’s Appellate Body. “This creates immediate uncertainty but potential long-term benefits.”
For now, the decision underscores the judiciary’s evolving role in defining the boundaries of presidential trade powers—a debate likely to continue as global economic competition intensifies.
