Most of the Trump tariff was ruled by illegal by the Court of Appeal

On Friday, a federal appeal court ruled that most of the president Donald Trump‘s Global definitions Illegal, hitting a huge blow to his aggressive heart Commercial policy.

the The American Court of Appeal for the Federal Department Hold in a 7-4 Judgment The law that Trump protested when granted more expansionary tariffs – including his “mutual” definitions – does not actually give him the authority to impose these fees.

The court said, “The basic authority of Congress to impose taxes such as customs tariffs is confirmed exclusively in the legislative branch by the constitution,” the court said. “Definitions are the basic force of Congress.”

The Court of Appeal stopped its ruling even walking October 14In order to give the Trump administration time to demand the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

On Friday, Trump attacked the Court of Appeal as a “very party” and confirmed that the Supreme Court would rule in his favor.

“If these definitions go at all, it will be a complete disaster for the country,” Trump wrote in a social publication. “If it is allowed to stand, this decision will literally destroy the United States of America.”

“The president’s tariff is still a mast, and we look forward to the final victory in this matter,” White House spokesman Kush Disi said in a separate statement.

Friday’s ruling is the second consecutive loss of Trump in the case of making or breaking, known as Vos Selections V. Trump.

The case was unified from two separate lawsuits, one by dozens of states and the other by five small American companies.

It is the farthest along more than half of the decorations of federal suits that challenge Trump’s use of the Economic Forces Law of International Emergency, or IEPA, to impose a comprehensive tariff.

“For the second time in this case, a federal court saw that the president’s tariff” on the day of liberation is “illegal.”

“This decision protects American companies and consumers from uncertainty and harm caused by these illegal definitions,” Shawab said in a statement.

“The decision today is a strong reaffirmation of the basic constitutional obligations of our nation from the founders of our nation, especially the principle that presidents must act within the rule of law.”

The Trump administration has argued that IEPA enables the president to impose an effective tariff for the country at any level if it sees it necessary to address the state of national emergency.

In late May, the American International Trade Court rejected this position and hit the tariffs that depend on Trump, including mutual definitions around the world. This ruling also canceled Trump’s tariff on Canada, Mexico and China, which was imposed on the treatment of the alleged trafficking in the United States.

The federal circle soon stopped this ruling while Trump’s appeal was over. But many appeals judges seem to be very skeptical in the Trump administration arguments when they heard oral arguments in late July.

On Friday’s ruling, the court found that the definitions facing challenges exceeded Trump’s authority under IEPA.

“Each of the tariffs of trafficking and mutual definitions is unlimited in the range, amount and duration,” the majority ruled.

“These definitions apply to almost all the articles that were imported to the United States (and in the case of mutual definitions, they apply to almost all countries), and the imposition of high rates that constantly change and exceed those stipulated in (American tariff system), and not limited to the period.”

The four dissidents said they did not agree to conclude the majority on the issue of the legitimacy of definitions.

The opposition said that the prosecutors did not justify their argument for a brief ruling in their favor.

The appeal was seen by 11 of the 12th judge on the federal circle. The twelfth judge in the court, Paulin Newman, did not participate in the case, as it was suspended from its duties since 2023. Nyuman, 98, in a long -term dispute with the court at the request that it be subject to a perception evaluation in order to continue to hear the cases.

The decision of the Court of Appeal came a few hours after commercial negotiators urged Trump the judges to consider what they called “supplementary developments” in the case, including the evaluation of Congress Budget Office These definitions will reduce the US deficit by 4 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Houard Lottennik Minister of Trade said in a court announcement that hitting the tariff that Trump imposed under Eba “would cause tremendous harm and cannot be repaired by the United States, its foreign policy and national security now and in the future.”

He said, “Such a ruling will threaten the broader American strategic interests at home and abroad, which probably leads to revenge and the relaxation of deals agreed by foreign trade partners, and welcomes critical continuous negotiations with foreign trade partners.”