FnF News
Trump to Appeal Manhattan Court Ruling Blocking ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs
By Khadija | FNF News | May 29, 2025
In a bold rebuttal to what critics have called “judicial overreach,” former President Donald Trump and his legal team have announced they will appeal a Manhattan-based federal court decision that struck down his recently announced “Liberation Day” tariffs. The ruling, handed down by the U.S. Court of International Trade, declared the executive action unlawful — a conclusion that Trump allies and many legal scholars say is not only flawed but destined to be overturned.
“The court got it completely wrong,” said Trump at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “The president of the United States absolutely has the power to impose tariffs. We’ve done it before — we’ll do it again.”
The “Liberation Day” tariffs, first introduced in April 2025, were a centerpiece of Trump’s economic platform for his 2024 campaign. They included a 10% universal tariff on all imports, with additional penalties aimed at countries like China, Mexico, and South Korea. Trump called the move “a historic economic reset” and framed it as a necessary step to “protect American industry from foreign exploitation.”
A Question of Authority
At the center of the legal challenge is whether the president has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and other trade-related statutes. In her ruling, Judge Jane Restani concluded that Trump’s declaration of an economic emergency did not meet the threshold required to activate such sweeping powers.
But constitutional scholars across the political spectrum have questioned the ruling’s durability.
“This ruling is out of sync with decades of legal precedent,” said Prof. Andrew Grossman, a constitutional law expert at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. “Congress has repeatedly granted the executive branch broad latitude over trade and tariffs. That’s not accidental — it’s the result of decades of legislative design going back to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the IEEPA itself in 1977.”
Indeed, those acts — along with Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act — have been used by presidents from both parties to reshape U.S. trade policy. President Obama used them to restrict imports from Iran and Russia. President George W. Bush used them to impose steel tariffs. And Trump himself relied on them extensively during his first term without judicial interference.
Congress Deliberately Delegated Power
The idea that the president lacks trade authority is not only historically inaccurate, critics argue — it contradicts the intent of Congress itself. Following decades of post-war trade liberalization and an increasingly globalized economy, lawmakers in the 1960s and 70s recognized the need for fast, unilateral decision-making.
“The legislative record is clear,” said Danielle Pletka, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “Congress ceded broad powers over trade to the executive to allow for flexibility, rapid response to international threats, and the ability to negotiate strong deals.”
Even the Supreme Court, in past rulings such as United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) and Dalton v. Specter (1994), has generally deferred to the executive on matters of foreign commerce and national security.
“Unless the judiciary wants to upend 50 years of administrative law and foreign policy practice, this ruling cannot stand,” said Pletka.
Trump’s Team: Confident on Appeal
Trump’s legal team filed an expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where oral arguments could begin as early as July. According to campaign sources, Trump’s attorneys are confident the higher court will reverse the lower court’s decision — and they’re prepared to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
“This is more than a legal battle — it’s a constitutional imperative,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top policy advisers. “The judiciary has no business second-guessing legitimate executive authority on trade, especially when Congress has explicitly authorized it.”
Multiple former administration officials echoed that sentiment, noting that Trump’s use of emergency powers is well within the legal bounds set by previous administrations.
“What Trump did with Liberation Day tariffs is no different in substance than what Obama did with Iranian assets or what Biden did with Russian oil,” said Peter Navarro, Trump’s former trade advisor. “The only difference is that Trump’s policies work — and they scare the globalist establishment.”
Backlash from the Left — and Within
Despite growing legal momentum for Trump’s position, liberal lawmakers and even some establishment Republicans have attacked the Liberation Day tariffs as reckless and politically motivated.
Senator Elizabeth Warren called the tariffs “a populist smokescreen for authoritarianism,” while GOP Senator Mitt Romney warned that “executive trade war policies only deepen global instability.”
But Trump’s base is unmoved. According to a May 2025 YouGov poll, 71% of Republican voters support the Liberation Day tariffs and believe the judiciary is attempting to sabotage Trump’s comeback.
Global Reactions and Economic Impacts
The court’s ruling brought mixed reactions from international partners. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce welcomed the decision and urged the U.S. “to restore multilateralism and predictable economic policies.” Meanwhile, European officials expressed concern about the precedent it might set if courts began overriding national leaders’ authority on trade.
However, American industries are divided. While large import-dependent corporations criticized the tariffs, domestic manufacturing groups and unions largely supported them, citing rising wages and reshoring efforts.
“Tariffs are the only language China understands,” said Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. “We finally have a leader who’s willing to say enough is enough.”
A Bigger Battle Looms
Legal analysts believe this case could mark a turning point in how the balance of power is interpreted in modern American governance. If the court’s decision is upheld, it could significantly curtail the president’s ability to act independently in trade matters — a shift that would ripple across administrations regardless of party.
“This case is about more than Trump,” said Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional law professor and former Harvard Law School dean. “It’s about the future of presidential authority. If the courts begin rewriting decades of precedent, we risk creating a dangerous vacuum in American foreign and economic policy.”
Trump, never shy about confrontation, is embracing that fight head-on.
“I’m not doing this for me,” he told supporters in Texas. “I’m doing this for every American worker who’s been sold out by Washington elites. We will win this — in the courts and at the ballot box.”
