UNITED STATES: APPEALS COURT DECLARES MOST TRUMP-IMPOSED TARIFFS ILLEGAL, BUT KEEPS THEM IN PLACE TEMPORARILY

By Nicolapps, Human Rights Defender

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that many of the tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump are "illegal," though they will remain in place temporarily while the legal proceedings continue.

The ruling, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, confirms that Trump lacked the legal authority to declare national emergencies and impose tariffs on imports from multiple countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). This decision largely validates an earlier ruling by a New York trade court.

However, the court dismissed the portion of the ruling that ordered the "immediate repeal" of the tariffs, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Economic and political impact

Trump's unilaterally imposed tariffs have shaken international markets, increased economic uncertainty, and strained relations with long-standing trading partners such as the European Union and Japan.

According to analysts, the court ruling complicates Trump's ambitions to maintain a coercive trade policy based on tariff threats and pressure. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the federal government will have to "refund taxes collected" during this period, which would represent a significant blow to the Treasury Department.

A vision from human rights

As a "Human Rights Defender," I believe it's essential to analyze this situation beyond economics. Tariffs are not just a matter of international trade: they directly impact the lives of millions of working families, both in the United States and in Latin America and other regions.

The prices of basic goods have risen, particularly affecting the most vulnerable communities. The cost of meat, for example, increased by 11% in July, putting pressure on household budgets. These policies, adopted without a solid legal basis, highlight how unilateral decisions can violate the "right to a dignified life and food security."

Final reflection

The court ruling not only represents a blow to Trump's trade strategy, but also opens an opportunity to rethink how the United States should engage with the world. International trade cannot be based on imposition or fear, but rather on "cooperation, mutual respect, and a balance between economic development and human rights."

Today more than ever, we must remember that economic policy decisions are not abstract: they affect the dining tables, jobs, health, and opportunities of millions of people. And like Nicolapps, I will continue to raise my voice so that justice, both legal and social, prevails.