Second federal court blocks Trump’s tariffs 

A second federal court blocked the bulk of President Trump’s tariffs on Thursday, ruling he cannot claim unilateral authority to impose them by declaring emergencies over trade deficits and fentanyl.

The ruling from U.S District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in the nation’s capital, comes hours after the U.S. Court of International Trade similarly blocked a series of Trump’s tariff announcements.

The administration quickly appealed both rulings.

Since February, Trump has attempted to impose tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). The law authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency to combat an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” but a series of businesses and plaintiffs have argued the law doesn’t authorize tariffs.

“This case is not about tariffs qua tariffs,” Contreras wrote in his 33-page opinion.

“It is about whether IEEPA enables the President to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy,” he continued. “The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it does not.”

The order blocks both Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” announcement that imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff and steeper rates on dozens of U.S. trading partners as well as Trump’s various tariffs on China.

Trump initially announced a 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods in February before raising the rate in a series of subsequent announcements through April, at one point reaching 145 percent for some goods. The administration temporarily slashed the rate after trade talks in Geneva.

Despite the courts indefinitely blocking those announcements, some of Trump’s other tariffs remain in place, as they are rooted in other legal authorities. Those primarily concern specific products, like steel and automobiles.

“The courts should have no role here,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a briefing Thursday moments after the ruling came down. “There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process. America cannot function if President Trump, or any president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.”

Thursday’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by two Illinois-based small businesses, Learning Resources and hand2mind, that manufacture educational toys mostly in China and other foreign countries. 

Their case is one of a handful of legal challenges to Trump’s tariffs making their way through the courts.

Contreras noted his ruling would have “virtually no effect on the government” because the U.S. Court of International Trade had blocked Trump’s ability to impose tariffs under the IEEPA on Wednesday evening in a separate lawsuit.

The Trump administration has attempted to move all the various cases to the trade court, but Contreras refused the request as part of Thursday’s ruling, allowing it to proceed in Washington, D.C.

It’s a break from judges in Florida and Montana, who both agreed to the administration’s request. A similar motion remains pending in a lawsuit brought by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who filed his case in San Francisco.

Updated: 2:29 p.m.