FnF News
Trump Administration to Appeal Manhattan Court Ruling on Controversial ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs
By Khadija | FNF News | May 29, 2025
In a legal escalation that could define the contours of presidential economic powers for years to come, the Trump administration has announced it will appeal a landmark ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan. The decision, handed down earlier this week, effectively blocked the implementation of former President Donald Trump’s controversial “Liberation Day” tariffs — sweeping import duties that critics argue were implemented unilaterally and in violation of constitutional principles.
The ruling represents a significant rebuke to Trump’s aggressive trade strategy, which has once again become central to his political narrative as he campaigns to return to the White House in the 2024 election cycle. The tariffs were touted by Trump as a means to “reclaim economic sovereignty” and “punish unfair trading partners,” particularly China. However, the court concluded that Trump had overstepped the bounds of executive power by invoking emergency authorities to impose the levies without congressional consent.
“This is a clear-cut case of executive overreach,” Judge Jane Restani wrote in her 58-page opinion. “While the president may respond to certain economic emergencies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the imposition of broad-based import duties — particularly in peacetime and without a defined national security threat — exceeds statutory and constitutional limits.”
The Background: Liberation Day Tariffs
The “Liberation Day” tariffs, named by Trump to coincide with his April 18 campaign rally in Atlanta — an event he dubbed “America’s Economic Independence Day” — included a blanket 10% tariff on all imports entering the United States. Additional surcharges were directed at Chinese steel, Mexican auto parts, and South Korean semiconductors, with some rates reaching as high as 40%.
Though reminiscent of the trade wars during Trump’s first term, these new tariffs were introduced outside the usual processes governed by the U.S. Trade Representative or the Department of Commerce. Instead, Trump justified them under the IEEPA, a Cold War-era statute intended to allow presidents to respond quickly to extraordinary foreign threats.
Economists, legal scholars, and business leaders were quick to criticize the move.
“This isn’t economic policy — it’s campaign theatre with real-world consequences,” said Robert Shapiro, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton. “Trump is weaponizing economic tools to create political narratives, but he’s undermining U.S. credibility and exposing American consumers to higher prices.”
Legal Challenge Led by Bipartisan Coalition
Shortly after the tariffs were enacted, a coalition of 13 states — including New York, California, Illinois, and even traditionally red-leaning states like Utah — joined forces with five small- and medium-sized American businesses to challenge the policy in court. The plaintiffs argued that the tariffs were not only harmful to commerce and consumer prices but also enacted without lawful authority.
“This was not about left or right,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James during a press briefing. “This was about defending the Constitution and ensuring that no president — regardless of party — can bypass Congress to make sweeping economic changes.”
The plaintiffs also received support from a coalition of trade associations, including the American Importers Alliance, the National Retail Federation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all of which submitted amicus briefs warning of the damage such tariffs could inflict on the supply chain and inflation control efforts.
In her ruling, Judge Restani emphasized that while the president retains the authority to declare national emergencies, those declarations must be grounded in genuine threats and used proportionately.
“There is no current or imminent national emergency related to global trade or supply chains that justifies such an expansive exercise of emergency powers,” she wrote.
Trump’s Response: “A Rigged System”
Never one to retreat quietly, Donald Trump immediately lashed out at the court’s decision, calling it “another example of the Deep State protecting globalist interests at the expense of the American worker.”
Speaking to supporters in Des Moines, Iowa just hours after the decision was made public, Trump declared: “We’re going to appeal this disgraceful ruling. This was a patriotic move to protect our country — and now an activist judge wants China to keep ripping us off.”
Trump’s campaign released a statement later that day, confirming that his legal team had already filed the paperwork to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
“The decision by Judge Restani is not just wrong — it’s dangerous,” the statement read. “It threatens the very foundation of executive action in the face of economic warfare. President Trump will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.”
Economic Fallout and Political Stakes
Even before the court ruling, the Liberation Day tariffs had sparked significant turbulence in financial markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 600 points in the days following their announcement in April, and economists at Goldman Sachs estimated that the tariffs could shave off 0.4% from U.S. GDP growth by the end of the year.
With inflation still lingering above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, several analysts warned that a fresh round of tariffs could fuel another price surge — particularly in sectors heavily reliant on imported goods, like electronics and automobiles.
Meanwhile, Democratic leaders seized on the ruling as a victory for constitutional order and economic stability.
“President Trump wants to govern like a king — issuing decrees and punishing enemies,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “But the Constitution doesn’t work that way, and today the courts reminded him of that fact.”
Still, the issue remains politically fraught. A recent NPR/Marist poll found that 48% of Republican voters supported Trump’s tariffs, viewing them as a necessary corrective to what they perceive as a failed globalist economic model. In contrast, 68% of independents and 92% of Democrats opposed the move, citing concerns about inflation and legality.
What Happens Next?
The appeal process could take months, possibly stretching into the late fall, coinciding with the final leg of the 2024 presidential campaign. Legal experts say that while the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could expedite the case due to its national importance, the likelihood of a final ruling before the election remains uncertain.
If Trump returns to the presidency in 2025, he could attempt to reimpose similar tariffs through alternative legal mechanisms — or even by declaring a new, narrowly tailored national emergency. However, the current ruling, if upheld, could severely limit the use of the IEEPA in matters of routine economic policy.
“There’s a real possibility this becomes a defining moment in U.S. economic law,” said Emily Bazelon, a constitutional law expert at Yale Law School. “The courts are being asked to delineate the limits of executive power in a post-pandemic, hyper-polarized America. That’s not just a legal question — it’s a political and philosophical one.”
Final Thoughts
As the appeal moves forward, the case has taken on symbolic importance, representing a clash between two visions of presidential power. For Trump and his supporters, it is a battle for national economic independence; for his critics, it is a warning about the erosion of democratic checks and balances.
Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: the 2024 election is not just a referendum on policies or personalities — it’s a test of how America defines power, law, and governance in the 21st century.
Sources:
- Reuters – US court blocks Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs
- The Guardian – US Politics Live
- NPR/Marist National Survey on Trade Policy, May 2025
- New York Times – Court Rebukes Trump’s Use of Emergency Powers
This report is part of FNF News’ continuing coverage of U.S. politics and law. For more in-depth analysis, follow us on FNFNews.com.