Trump Tariff Hike: See Which Tariffs Were Blocked by U.S. Courts

A U.S. trade court blocked the reciprocal tariffs announced by President Donald Trump on Wednesday (May 28). The White House is appealing the decision.

President Trump unveiled the sweeping tariff package on April 2, imposing import taxes of 10% to 50% on goods from over 180 countries.

In early April, Trump had also announced a 90-day “pause” on reciprocal tariffs. In practice, this kept import tariffs at 10% for all countries — except China, which remained subject to higher rates. Full implementation of the tariff plan had been expected to resume on July 8.

1. Which Tariffs Were Suspended?

The court ruling suspended two major categories of Trump-era tariffs:

• The global tariffs announced on April 2, which imposed a 10% tax on imports from nearly all countries — including Brazil.
• The higher tariffs on Chinese goods, some of which exceeded 100%, were partially reduced after negotiations between the two countries.

In addition, the court also suspended:

• The 25% tariffs Trump had placed on products from Canada and Mexico, citing an “emergency” due to illegal immigration and drug trafficking;
• The 20% tariffs on most Chinese products, which Trump had linked to the country’s alleged involvement in producing the opioid fentanyl.

The ruling also appears to have blocked Trump’s move to end tax exemptions on low-value imports — known as “de minimis” shipping, frequently used by companies like Shein and Temu for goods shipped from China. However, the immediate impact of this part of the decision remains unclear.

2. Which Tariffs Are Still in Effect?

The 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum, auto parts, and automobiles remain in place and were not affected by the ruling.

These tariffs were imposed under a 1962 trade law, not under emergency powers. Under this law, an investigation is typically required to determine if imports pose a threat to national security, which makes the process slower than invoking emergency authority.

3. Why Are the Tariffs Being Blocked?

The decision was made by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, based in New York. Multiple lawsuits argued that Trump subjected U.S. trade policy to his whims, creating economic chaos.

The judges ruled that the president exceeded his authority by using an emergency powers law to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from many countries.

“The Global and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by the IEEPA to regulate imports through tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The panel concluded that the law does not allow the president to impose unlimited tariffs on products from nearly every country. “The court does not interpret IEEPA as granting such unlimited power, and therefore, we annul the contested tariffs,” the judges stated.

The ruling opens the door to a legal battle that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. At least seven lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s tariff hike, considered a cornerstone of his trade policy.

One such case was brought by small businesses, including wine importer V.O.S. Selections, whose owner claims the tariffs could bankrupt his company. Additionally, 12 U.S. states, led by Oregon, have filed lawsuits.

“This decision reaffirms that our laws matter and that trade decisions cannot be made on a president’s whim,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.

Although tariffs generally require congressional approval, Trump insists he can act unilaterally.

He argues that the U.S. trade deficit, where import spending exceeds export earnings, constitutes a national emergency.

This justification is now under judicial scrutiny. Plaintiffs argue that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs. Even if it did, they say, the trade deficit does not meet the legal standard for a national emergency, which requires an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In response, the government cites President Richard Nixon’s use of emergency tariffs in 1971 and argues that only Congress—not the courts—should determine whether the president’s justification meets the legal threshold.

Source: G1

Sharing is caring!