A federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Donald Trump’s sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs as it considers the administration’s request to leave the tariffs in place while litigation over their legality continues.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order Thursday afternoon granting “an immediate administrative stay” of a ruling Wednesday by the U.S. Court of International Trade that found Trump could not use emergency powers in an almost 50-year-old statute to impose tariffs on imports from countries around the globe.
The decision temporarily reimposes Trump’s sweeping 10 percent global tariffs and the paused “reciprocal” tariffs that Trump imposed on more than 60 trading partners and has used as a leverage point in trade negotiations. It also applies to his 25 percent duties on Canadian and Mexican products and a 20 percent tariff on Chinese products in response to a purported national emergency on drug trafficking.
The appeals court said the temporary stay would remain in place until it rules on the administration’s motion for a longer-term pause of the lower court decision. The stay is likely to run through at least mid-June, according to a schedule laid out by the Federal Circuit judges.
In a separate case, a federal district judge also ruled against Trump’s tariffs on Thursday. That ruling — from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington — is not covered by the Federal Circuit’s stay, and the Trump administration’s appeal of Contreras’ ruling will go to a different federal appeals court. But Contreras put his own ruling on hold for 14 days to give the administration time to appeal. He also restricted its ultimate effect to the two companies that filed the lawsuit.
The seesawing rulings fuel the uncertainty over the administration’s tariff agenda, as businesses and foreign leaders have scrambled to understand what the courts’ role could mean for ongoing trade negotiations.
The latest development comes hours after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a stern rebuke of the International Trade Court’s decision, claiming that the judicial branch had “railroaded” the administration’s sensitive discussions with foreign governments.
