By Parrot Newspaper 
U.S. Court Halts President Trump’s Liberation Day Tariffs, Declares Them Unconstitutional
By Parrot International Desk
Washington D.C. | May 29, 2025
In a landmark rebuke of executive power, a U.S. federal court has struck down President Donald Trump’s controversial “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling that the sweeping import duties violated constitutional limits and grossly exceeded the authority granted to the presidency.
The decision, delivered Wednesday by the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenges one of Trump’s boldest economic moves since returning to office. It halts the rollout of new tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of imports and casts doubt over the legal foundation of his broader trade war agenda.
> “The president cannot unilaterally weaponize emergency statutes to reshape global trade,” the court’s unanimous opinion read.
“The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not permit such boundless action absent a genuine and immediate national emergency.”
—
A Nationalist Trade Doctrine Collides with Law
President Trump had announced the “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, framing them as a patriotic response to decades of trade deficits and foreign “economic aggression.” A flat 10% tariff was imposed on nearly all imported goods, with elevated rates targeting China, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.
The tariffs triggered uproar from major trading partners, business leaders, and constitutional scholars. Dozens of lawsuits swiftly followed, arguing the administration had abused the IEEPA—a 1977 law designed to allow narrowly targeted sanctions in moments of national peril.
The federal court’s ruling not only invalidates the blanket tariffs but also sets a critical precedent limiting presidential authority over trade in peacetime.
—
White House Reaction: Defiance and Determination
The White House wasted no time condemning the verdict. Trump’s press secretary, Kush Desai, called the decision “a judicial overreach against a president elected to put America first.”
> “President Trump is fighting to restore American greatness,” Desai said at a press briefing.
“Unelected judges will not derail this administration’s mission to secure fair trade and strong borders.”
Top Trump advisor Stephen Miller went further, calling the court’s decision a “judicial coup” and accusing the judiciary of undermining national sovereignty. The administration confirmed it has filed an immediate appeal and vowed to take the case as far as the Supreme Court.
—
Markets Stabilize, Allies Applaud
Global financial markets, rattled by weeks of uncertainty, responded positively to the ruling. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged over 400 points on Thursday morning, while the euro, pound, and yuan gained ground against the dollar.
In Brussels, where the European Commission had been preparing to retaliate with tariffs on over $110 billion worth of American goods, officials praised the ruling as a “welcome return to lawful trade diplomacy.”
> “This ruling affirms the rule of law and international cooperation,” said EU Trade Commissioner Helena Grunwald.
“The path forward must be dialogue—not economic coercion.”
—
Constitutional Clarity and Economic Implications
At the heart of the legal battle was the scope of presidential power under the IEEPA. The court rejected the administration’s broad reading of the statute, asserting that emergency powers must be exercised with restraint and clear justification.
> “Congress, not the president, holds the power of the purse,” the court wrote.
“Interpreting IEEPA to allow unchecked global tariffs erases that separation of powers.”
Economists warned that had the tariffs been implemented, they would have likely triggered a spike in consumer prices, exacerbated inflation, and risked retaliation from trading partners.
> “This ruling may have spared U.S. households from a financial shock,” said Maria Hartwell, chief economist at the Center for Global Economic Policy.
“Tariffs at this scale would have hurt the very people they claimed to protect.”
—
Political Stakes Ahead of 2026
The timing of the court’s decision could have wide political ramifications as President Trump enters the second year of his return to office. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, the ruling is poised to shape debates on executive power, economic sovereignty, and the judiciary’s role in checking the presidency.
Legal experts say the case may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which now faces the delicate task of balancing national authority with constitutional restraint.
> “This isn’t just about tariffs,” said Professor Elijah Grant of Harvard Law.
“It’s about the limits of presidential power in the 21st century.”
—
Parrot Newspaper will continue to provide award-worthy coverage of this unfolding legal and economic saga, spotlighting its global impact and the evolving role of leadership in an interconnected world.