By Brendan Scanland
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday, a federal court blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an economic emergency powers law.
It would have been a major setback for the Trump administration’s trade agenda, if not for a federal appeals court, which delivered some positive news for the administration Thursday afternoon.
In April, President Trump enacted what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on key trade partners, using special economic emergency powers granted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
But judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York said the President went too far. The court sided with some of the parties who filed legal challenges to certain tariffs, including many of the reciprocal levies imposed in April, as well as other tariffs on Canada and Mexico which were designed to pressure both countries to do more to curb the flow of Fentanyl into the U.S.
“The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday.
White House officials call the ruling “ridiculous,” with Leavitt announcing that an emergency appeal had been filed. “We intend to win. We already filed an emergency appeal. We expect to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court,” she said.
Still, the ruling leaves a narrow path for certain tariffs. The White House said the President still has other tools—like Section 232—to protect U.S. trade interests.
However, the lack of stability with the fluctuating tariffs and the ongoing legal uncertainty is creating headaches for supply chain professionals.
“To make investment decisions, we need to understand what are the policies going to be in the future. And right now, the policies seem to be changing on a week-to-week basis,” said Brian Ladin, CEO of Delos Shipping. “It’s very difficult to make investment decisions when the rules of the game are changing frequently.”
Ladin pointed to real-world impacts already being felt across global logistics. “In May we saw Port of LA cargo volume drop 35%, year over year. So that’s symptomatic of volatility and uncertainty,” he said.
Ladin also emphasized that the effects of shifting trade policy are delayed but inevitable.
“If you think about a voyage from Shanghai to Los Angeles on a vessel, it’s somewhere between 15 and 25 days. And then you back up, do the math, and say it probably takes a month or two to change factory orders and factory supply chains, and then it maybe takes another month to get orders changed for retailers in the United States—there’s a 3 to 4 month lag time from change in these policies to what happens on a Walmart floor.”
He added, “Any time you have volatility in the supply chain, it’s going to create uncertainty, and that’s going to create issues for manufacturers and for consumers.”
On Thursday afternoon, a federal appeals court granted the administration’s request to temporarily pause the New York ruling—giving the White House some temporary breathing room. It’s another example of the ongoing legal tug-of-war that makes it difficult for business leaders like Ladin to plan ahead when “the rules of the game are changing so quickly.”
Meanwhile, countries around the world are watching the case closely, many postponing major trade decisions until the legal dust settles.
