White House Prepares Emergency Supreme Court Appeal After Tariff Block

Reports indicate that the Trump administration is contemplating an appeal to the Supreme Court, aiming to reverse a decision made by a U.S. trade court that obstructed most of the tariffs proposed by President Donald Trump. This development follows earlier reports that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously ruled on Wednesday, stating that the President had overstepped his constitutional authority by implementing sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners.

The court’s judgement stated that the Constitution exclusively vests Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with other nations, which the President’s powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 cannot override. This Act was designed to protect the economic stability of the country.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Thursday that the administration had already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay to strike down this decision. She stated, “The Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country.”

The administration has requested the trade court to halt its order until the appeal process is complete. Meanwhile, on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a preliminary injunction blocking tariffs against two companies. This development raises important questions about the checks and balances within our democratic institutions.

The significance of this should not be overlooked. In their emergency motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the administration argued that the trade court’s injunction is based on a flawed interpretation of Presidential tariff authority. They stated, “A stay pending appeal, and an immediate administrative stay, are necessary to prevent immediate, irreparable harm to the Nation.”

The three-judge panel of the trade court included two judges appointed by Republican presidents, Jane Restani (Ronald Reagan) and Timothy Reif (Trump), and the other by a Democrat president, Gary Katzmann (Obama). Their decision reflects multiple perspectives on this contentious issue.

White House press secretary Leavitt further argued that the judges “brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump.” She expressed concern about a dangerous trend of unelected judges involving themselves in the presidential decision-making process. Her statements underscore the ongoing debate about the balance of power among the branches of our government.

The Trump administration is contemplating a Supreme Court appeal, questioning a U.S. trade court’s decision blocking the President’s proposed tariffs. The case is a reminder of the importance of our democratic processes and the checks and balances that govern them.