The Trump administration is racing to halt a major blow to the president’s sweeping tariffs after a US court ruled they “exceed any authority granted to the president.” A US trade court ruled the US president’s tariffs regime was illegal on Wednesday in a dramatic twist that could block Trump’s controversial global trade policy.
On Thursday, an appeals court agreed to a temporary pause in the decision pending an appeal hearing. The Trump administration is expected to take the case to the supreme court if it loses. The ruling by a three-judge panel at the New York-based court of international trade came after several lawsuits argued Trump had exceeded his authority, leaving US trade policy dependent on his whims and unleashing economic chaos around the world.
On Thursday, the Trump administration filed for “emergency relief” from the ruling “to avoid the irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake”. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said the judges had “brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump” in what she characterised as a pattern of judicial overreach. “Ultimately the supreme court must put an end to this,” she said.
Leavitt’s comments came as a second judge, Washington DC district court judge Rudolph Contreras, called the tariffs “unlawful” and ordered a preliminary injunction on the collection of tariffs from a pair of Illinois toy importers, which brought the case. Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress but Trump has so far bypassed that requirement by claiming that the country’s trade deficits amount to a national emergency. This had left the US president able to apply sweeping tariffs to most countries last month, in a shock move that sent markets reeling.
The court’s ruling stated that Trump’s tariff orders “exceed any authority granted to the president … to regulate importation by means of tariffs”. The judges were keen to state that they were not passing judgment on the “wisdom or likely effectiveness of the president’s use of tariffs as leverage”. Instead, their ruling centered on whether the trade levies had been legally applied in the first place. Their use was “impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it”, the decision explained.
Financial markets cheered the court’s ruling, with the US dollar rallying in its wake, soaring against the euro, yen and Swiss franc. In Europe, the German Dax rallied 0.9%, while France’s Cac 40 rose 1%. The UK’s FTSE 100 blue-chip index ticked up 0.1% at the start of trading. Stocks in Asia also climbed on Thursday, while in the US stock markets all rose marginally.
The court ruling immediately invalidated all of the tariff orders that were issued through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law meant to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during a national emergency. The judges said Trump must issue new orders reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days.
The ruling, if it stands, blows a giant hole through Trump’s strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners, draw manufacturing jobs back to US shores and shrink a $1.2tn (£892bn) US goods trade deficit, which were among his key campaign promises. Without the help of the IEEPA, the Trump administration would have to take a slower approach, launching lengthier trade investigations and abiding by other trade laws to back the tariff threats.
The decision is also likely to embolden other challenges to Trump’s policy. Last month, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, filed a lawsuit against the tariffs, arguing they were “illegal, full stop”. The court was not asked to address some industry-specific tariffs Trump has issued on automobiles, steel and aluminium, using a different statute, so these are likely to remain in place for now.
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, hit out at the ruling in a social media post claiming “the judicial coup is out of control”.
At least seven lawsuits have challenged Trump’s border taxes, the centerpiece of Trump’s trade policy. The court made its ruling in response to two cases. One was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, VOS Selections, whose owner said the tariffs were having a major impact and his company may not survive.
The plaintiffs in the tariff lawsuit argued that the emergency powers law did not give the president the power to apply tariffs, and even if it had done, the trade deficit did not qualify as an emergency, which is defined as an “unusual and extraordinary threat”. The US has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.

From the time of its establishment, the United States Court of International Trade and its predecessor bodies have been designed to provide “a comprehensive system for judicial review of civil actions arising out of import transactions and federal transactions affecting international trade.”
This system, now established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, is rooted in the mandate of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, providing that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The Court ensures... national uniformity in the judicial decision-making affecting import transactions.

HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LITIGATION
The Customs Courts Act of 1980, historically the most significant legislation affecting international trade litigation, is also the most recent attempt by Congress to design the best judicial system for corrective justice in this area. The role of the United States Court of International Trade--as a constituent and significant part of the federal judicial system--is the culmination of a continuous process of empiric legislation enacted over the past 200 years.
The first case tried before the first judge appointed to the first court organized under the Constitution of the United States involved a dispute arising from an importation into the new nation. Since that time, Congress periodically has addressed the many complex issues involved in resolving international trade disputes to solve specific problems or meet specific needs at particular times.
In 1890, Congress provided for a Board of General Appraisers, a quasi-judicial administrative unit within the Treasury Department. The nine general appraisers reviewed decisions by United States Customs officials concerning the amount of duties to be paid on importations.
As the number and types of decisions relating to importations expanded, Congress, in 1926, replaced the outmoded Board of General Appraisers with the United States Customs Court, a court established under Article I of the Constitution. However, the change was little more than a change in name, for the jurisdiction and powers of the tribunal remained essentially the same, and the Customs Court continued to function as did the Board of General Appraisers.
Over the next thirty years, the Customs Court gradually was integrated into the federal judicial system until, in 1956, Congress declared the court to be a court established under Article III of the Constitution. Despite this important change in status, the jurisdiction, powers, and procedures of the court followed the pattern of its statutory predecessors.
In the late 1960's, Congress recognized that fundamental changes were needed in the court's statutory procedures as well as in its jurisdiction and powers. The scope of these changes was so broad that Congress, in the Customs Courts Act of 1970, limited its efforts to procedural reforms. Congress deferred for subsequent legislation the remaining substantive issues concerning the court's jurisdiction and remedial powers, which were addressed in the Customs Courts Act of 1980.

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT
The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints the nine judges who constitute the United States Court of International Trade, which is a national court established under Article III of the Constitution.
The judges, who are appointed for life, as are all judges of Article III courts, may be designated and assigned temporarily by the Chief Justice of the United States to perform judicial duties in a United States Court of Appeals or a United States District Court.
The chief judge of the Court of International Trade is a statutory member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and convenes a judicial conference of the Court of International Trade periodically for the purposes of considering the business and improving the administration of justice in the court.
The Judicial Conference of the United States serves as the principal policy making body concerned with the administration of the United States Courts.
The chambers of the judges, the courtrooms, and the offices of court are located at One Federal Plaza in New York City at the Courthouse of the United States Court of International Trade.

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
The geographical jurisdiction of the United States Court of International Trade extends throughout the United States. The court can and does hear and decide cases which arise anywhere in the nation. The court also is authorized to hold hearings in foreign countries.
The different types of cases the court is authorized to decide--that is, its subject matter jurisdiction--are limited and defined by the Constitution and specific laws enacted by the Congress.
The subject matter jurisdiction of the court was greatly expanded by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. Under this law, in addition to certain specified types of subject matter jurisdiction, the court has a residual grant of exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide any civil action against the United States, its officers, or its agencies arising out of any law pertaining to international trade.
This broad grant of subject matter jurisdiction is complemented by another provision in the Customs Courts Act of 1980 which makes it clear that the United States Court of International Trade has the complete powers in law and equity of, or as conferred by statute upon, other Article III courts of the United States. Under this provision, the court may grant any relief appropriate to the particular case before it, including, but not limited to, money judgments, writs of mandamus, and preliminary or permanent injunctions.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES BEFORE THE COURT
When a case involves the constitutionality of an act of Congress, a Presidential proclamation, or an Executive order, or otherwise has broad and significant implications, the chief judge may assign the case to a three-judge panel.
Appeals from final decisions of the court may be taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court of the United States.
.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal trade court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.
The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump has exceeded his authority and left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims. But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.
The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump’s signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The ruling faces certain appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency.
He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America’s massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.
The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive. A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.

Good read. My conclusion over decades is that good funds will continue to be top funds
in the future until markets change and why I started investing this way in 2000.

sounds as though you have done some backtesting.
I held a lot of tweix, cgmfx, fairx, glrbx, and mapox back then.

Dr. Mike Lemmon's pigs, each valued between $2,500 and $5,000, were supposed to be on a plane bound for Hangzhou, China, from St. Louis in April, where’d they spend the flight snoring, play fighting and snacking on oats and husked corn before taking up residence at Chinese hog farms.
Instead, many went to a local Indiana slaughterhouse for less than $200 each after the Chinese buyer canceled the order within a week of China implementing retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. in April.
China is one of the biggest importers of American breeding pigs and other livestock genetic material such as cattle semen. These lucrative niche export markets had been growing, but dried up since U.S. President Donald Trump started a trade war with Beijing.
U.S. farmers and exporters said the dispute has already cost them millions of dollars and jeopardized prized trade relationships that took years to develop.