Federal appellate judges voiced deep skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump's claim that he can unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs under emergency powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), casting doubt over a key legal rationale behind the administration's expansive trade strategy.
During a nearly two-hour hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, several members of the 11-judge panel challenged the legitimacy of Trump's use of IEEPA-a 1977 law historically used to freeze assets and block transactions during national emergencies-to justify tariffs imposed through a series of executive orders.
"IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere," Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna stated, signaling widespread judicial concern over the administration's interpretation of the statute. Judge Timothy Dyk added, "It was hard for me to see" how Congress intended to give the president such sweeping authority through IEEPA.
Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, defending Trump's position, acknowledged that "no president has ever read IEEPA this way" but maintained that the statute confers "broad and flexible" power to respond to emergencies. "The president is not asking for unbounded authority," Shumate insisted, pointing to trade negotiations with the EU as evidence of the tariffs' strategic purpose.
The legal challenge stems from Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" executive order, which imposed baseline tariffs of 10% on nearly all imports and pledged increases of up to 20% by August 1. Though some rates were paused pending bilateral deals, Trump has kept core levies in place while finalizing new agreements with nations including the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Japan, and the European Union.
The plaintiffs-including 12 states and several private companies-argue that the trade deficit cited by Trump is neither "unusual" nor "extraordinary," and thus fails to meet the IEEPA standard for declaring a national emergency. Neal Katyal, attorney for the plaintiffs, described the administration's position as a "breathtaking" overreach that effectively allows the president to act without checks. "The president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency," Katyal argued.
The lower U.S. Court of International Trade previously sided with the plaintiffs, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA. The administration appealed, and while the Federal Circuit allowed duties to remain in place during the appeal, Thursday's full-bench hearing signals the stakes are rising. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
In defending the tariffs, Trump has argued that the U.S. trade deficit-$903 billion in 2024, up from $559 billion in 2019-poses a national security risk, threatening military readiness and domestic manufacturing. He also imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil, citing concerns over free speech following former President Jair Bolsonaro's trial, which Trump called an "emergency."
Chief Judge Kimberly Moore pressed this rationale with a hypothetical: "If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness, and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with it."
Trump weighed in publicly during the hearing, posting on Truth Social: "If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS."
