Q&A: What next after Trump's tariffs blocked by U.S. trade court?

A U.S. federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law.

The ruling from the New York-based Court of International Trade came after a number of lawsuits arguing Trump has overstepped his authority on imposing across-the-board duties on imports.

A panel of three judges ruled that the executive orders entailing fentanyl-related tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China as well as the "worldwide, retaliatory" tariffs announced on April 2 "will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined."

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the U.S. president to impose across-the-board tariffs, and not even authorize tariffs at all, argued the complaint by a group of small businesses.

What could happen next? CGTN talked to Sun Taiyi, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States, for his insights.

CGTN: What are the implications of the U.S. court blocking of Trump's tariffs?

Sun: This represents a major setback for the Trump administration. As many would agree, President Trump's preferred policy tool in dealing with other countries is the use of tariffs – regardless of whether the underlying issue is economic or trade-related. If his authority to impose tariffs unilaterally under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act were revoked, the administration's objectives – such as raising revenue through tariffs, pressuring companies to relocate manufacturing to the U.S., and leveraging tariffs in international negotiations – would be significantly constrained.

That said, he might still retain the ability to impose temporary import taxes of up to 15 percent for 150 days on countries with which the U.S. runs a substantial trade deficit, under the Trade Act of 1974.

The Trump administration has already filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and is likely to seek an emergency stay of the ruling, aiming to keep existing tariffs in place until a final decision is reached. In the meantime, the administration may pursue alternative trade barriers through more conventional legal mechanisms.

In short, this chapter of the trade war is far from over.

CGTN: We noted that the lawsuit was filed by a nonpartisan, nonprofit legal advocacy group on behalf of five U.S. small businesses. How should the fact that it was initiated by U.S. small business owners be interpreted?

Sun: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the U.S. are already experiencing substantial losses as a result of the tariff wars, and some of the damage has yet to surface due to existing warehouse inventories that temporarily cushion the impact. Even major corporations like Walmart have announced impending price increases – an ominous signal for smaller, more vulnerable businesses.

Thus, while the legal setback may seem like a minor defeat for the Trump administration, the broader economic losses and potential political fallout could prove far more damaging – for both the administration and the Republican Party.

CGTN: As the first major judicial challenge to Trump's tariff policies, could this ruling trigger a domino effect, prompting more businesses or industries to file similar lawsuits?

Sun: Multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration's tariff policies are already underway, and the issue is likely to reach the Supreme Court, as neither side appears willing to back down. However, the administration has been seeking a way to retreat without admitting defeat – and this ruling may offer just such an opportunity, at least until economic conditions improve.

Importantly, the ruling does not prevent the administration from pursuing tariffs through standard legal channels, a route it has taken in the past. Therefore, even if the administration suffers a legal loss, it may still find alternative means to reassert its use of tariffs as a policy tool.

CGTN: We noted that the Trump administration appealed the ruling minutes after it was announced. What are the core legal disputes in this case moving forward, and what are the chances of the administration succeeding in its appeal?

Sun: Much will depend on whether the court grants the Trump administration an emergency stay, whether the administration opts to invoke the 15 percent temporary import taxes, and how quickly and aggressively it moves to impose tariffs through standard legal channels. Additionally, Congress could either collaborate with the administration or act as an obstacle to its next steps.