Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• House Rules Committee advances bill expanding Trump's tariff authority over Russia sanctions — The House Rules Committee voted Monday to advance the Lindsey O Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026, which would grant President Trump broad authority to impose 100% tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil, including China and India. The bill targets Russia's energy, defense, and "shadow fleet" sectors. A House floor rule vote was scheduled for Tuesday, with a general vote Wednesday. The legislation has sparked internal Democratic division, with prominent Democrats opposing it as an unwarranted expansion of presidential tariff power that could harm US allies, while Ukraine advocates and some Democrats argue it is essential to pressure Russia's economy during the war.

Supporting reports

• Coalition of 25 US states sues Trump administration over new tariffs on 60 trading partners — A coalition of 25 US states filed suit in the US Court of International Trade on Monday challenging new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% imposed on goods from 60 trading partners and the European Union. The states argue the tariffs, which took effect in July under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, are unlawful and a pretext for replacing tariffs previously struck down by the Supreme Court in February. The states seek to halt the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and order refunds of duties already paid. The tariffs affect major trading partners including the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, and China, and account for 99.4% of US imports.
• Complaint filed — Oregon v. Trump (U.S. Court of International Trade, Docket 1:26-cv-03467) — On August 3, 2026, 23 states and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging tariffs imposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on July 23, 2026. The tariffs, set at 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies representing 99.4% of U.S. goods imports and invoked under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, are challenged as violating the Administrative Procedure Act (arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, procedurally defective) and the Constitution (ultra vires executive authority). Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, a stay, injunctive relief, refunds, and a three-judge panel.
• 25 States Sue Over New Tariffs — Twenty-five states have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration challenging new tariffs. These legal actions reflect widespread opposition to the tariff policy and its economic implications.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Oregon v. Trump (U.S. Court of International Trade, Docket 1:26-cv-03467) — On August 3, 2026, 23 states and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging tariffs imposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on July 23, 2026. The tariffs, set at 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies representing 99.4% of U.S. goods imports and invoked under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, are challenged as violating the Administrative Procedure Act (arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, procedurally defective) and the Constitution (ultra vires executive authority). Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, a stay, injunctive relief, refunds, and a three-judge panel.

Supporting reports

• Two small American businesses file lawsuit challenging Trump administration tariffs under Section 301 — Liberty Justice Center, on behalf of spice importer Burlap and Barrel and watchmaker Collective Horology, filed suit against the Trump administration challenging new tariffs announced Thursday affecting over 80 countries. The plaintiffs argue Trump exceeded his authority under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which permits tariffs only on goods made with forced labor. They contend the tariffs lack country-specific and practice-specific findings required by law and that the USTR failed to provide reasoned, record-based explanations. This marks the second major legal challenge by Liberty Justice Center after winning a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling earlier in 2026 against Trump's "liberation day" tariffs.
• Complaint filed: Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. Greer (Ct. Intl. Trade) — On July 24, 2026, Burlap and Barrel, Inc., a New York spice importer, and Collective Horology, a California watch retailer, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States Court of International Trade challenging tariffs issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative on July 23, 2026, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs, imposed on 60 economies "with the specific direction of the President" for alleged failure to enforce prohibitions on forced-labor goods, are alleged to exceed USTR authority, violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and breach the nondelegation doctrine. Plaintiffs seek class certification, declaration of unlawfulness, vacatur, an injunction against enforcement and collection, and refund of duties paid.

Supporting reports

• Court of International Trade ruled Trump's global tariffs illegal — The Court of International Trade in New York found Trump's 10% global tariffs, imposed after the Supreme Court declared his "Liberation Day" tariffs of April 2025 unconstitutional, to be illegal. Trump is expected to appeal the ruling. On the same day, Trump threatened to impose "much higher" tariffs on the European Union if it does not approve a trade agreement with the U.S. by July 4, 2026.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rules Trump exceeded authority on tariff imposition — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that President Trump violated the Constitution by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on global imports without congressional approval. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that taxation is a core congressional power. The ruling invalidated most of the administration's tariffs. Democratic lawmakers celebrated the decision as a check on executive overreach, while Trump called it a "disgrace" and indicated he had a backup plan.
• Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs unconstitutional in 6-3 decision — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last Friday that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during peacetime. The court affirmed that Congress alone retains the power to levy taxes under the Constitution and that the IEEPA cannot supersede that authority absent genuine emergency conditions. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court overturned Trump policies in his second term and undercut his claims to sweeping executive trade authority.
• Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs unlawful, striking down invocation of International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump lacked authority to impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by two Trump-appointed justices (Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) and the three liberal-leaning justices. The court held that taxation powers are reserved exclusively to Congress. Trump responded with a vitriolic public attack on the justices, calling them "FOOLS" and "LAPDOGS," and immediately announced new tariffs under different legislative authority.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump's national emergency tariffs — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision invalidating Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that tariffs constitute taxation and fall under Congress's exclusive constitutional authority. The decision reduces the U.S. average trade-weighted tariff from 15.3% to 8.3%, with significant reductions on Chinese (36.8% to 21.2%), Brazilian (26.3% to 6.8%), and Japanese (14.9% to 9.9%) imports. Trump immediately announced a 10% blanket global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as an alternative.
• US Supreme Court declares Trump's IEEPA tariffs illegal — The US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot impose tariffs in peacetime using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring his tariffs enacted under that authority unlawful. The White House indicated it will replace the levies using alternative statutory tools, such as the 1974 Trade Act. International businesses and governments expressed uncertainty about future tariff regimes, as the ruling does not constrain Trump's other trade policy options. US business groups celebrated the decision as affirming rule of law and separation of powers.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs illegal under IEEPA, Trump announces new 10% global tariff under Section 122 — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Friday declaring that Donald Trump's tariffs lacked legal justification under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed for national emergencies. The court held that tariff authority belongs exclusively to Congress under the Constitution's taxing power. Trump responded by calling the justices "a disgrace to the nation" and immediately announced a new 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits 150-day tariffs, while initiating investigations into unfair trading practices for potential permanent tariffs.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's unilateral tariff authority under IEEPA — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing global tariffs without congressional approval under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision affirmed lower court findings that the tariffs—covering dozens of countries and announced on "liberation day" in April 2025—were illegal. Trump immediately vowed to continue tariffs using alternative authority under the Trade Act of 1974, announcing a new 10% global tariff and directing investigations into unfair trading practices.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs under IEEPA unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court found that tariffs Trump levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. The decision was announced on Friday, February 21, 2026. Following the ruling, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports on Friday and escalated to a 15% worldwide tariff on Saturday, claiming the court decision actually granted him broader powers than he previously possessed.
• Supreme Court ruling on tariffs declared unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. Following this decision, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports, which he later raised to 15%. He claimed that the ruling inadvertently granted him more power and threatened higher tariffs on countries he accused of taking advantage of the U.S. This ruling has led to significant uncertainty among U.S. trading partners, prompting the European Parliament to pause trade deal approvals with the U.S.
• Trump claims he has unchecked power after Supreme Court ruling — Trump publicly stated that the Supreme Court's ruling has given him "far more powers and strength" than before, suggesting he could use tariffs in a more aggressive manner. His comments reflect a disregard for the Court's authority and the principles of checks and balances.
• Trump’s tariffs face public disapproval — A poll indicated that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of tariffs, with 82% believing he must obey Supreme Court rulings. This public sentiment reflects widespread dissatisfaction with his economic policies and governance.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump "liberation day" tariffs — The US Supreme Court struck down Trump's sweeping "liberation day" tariffs that had been imposed the previous year. The decision represented a judicial check on the executive's tariff authority and prompted the administration to announce the alternative 10% global tariff as a replacement policy.
• Supreme Court struck down Trump's broad tariff authority under IEEPA — Days before the State of the Union address, the Supreme Court struck down the President's claimed authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in what CNBC and CNN reported as one of the most consequential executive power rulings in years. In response, Trump called the ruling "unfortunate" and vowed to pursue "alternative" legal authorities to continue imposing tariffs without congressional approval, signaling his intent to circumvent the Court's decision.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the statute contains no mention of tariffs or duties and that the Constitution assigns taxing power to Congress. The decision invoked the major questions doctrine, holding that powers of vast economic significance require clear statutory language. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined Roberts's lead opinion; Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the core holding, with Kagan writing separately on statutory interpretation grounds.
• Media Invitation Announced for United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. Pre-Trial Hearing — The Department of War published an advisory on 2026-02-20 through its advisories channel. The department's own account of it reads: "The War Department invites media to cover pretrial proceedings in the case of United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, scheduled for May 4 - 29, 2026."
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs; CBP ordered to process $166bn in refunds — The Supreme Court invalidated Trump's "liberation day" tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling he lacked legal authority. A federal judge ordered US Customs and Border Protection to process refunds to approximately 330,000 importers totaling an estimated $166 billion without requiring lawsuits. CBP filed notice it would establish a refund system within 45 days using existing liquidation procedures. The ruling resolved a core constitutional question about executive power but left implementation details to lower courts and agency discretion.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's "liberation day" tariffs as illegal — On 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed in April 2025 were illegal. The decision opened the door to an estimated $175 billion in refund claims from businesses across the country. Major companies including FedEx, L'Oreal, and Dyson have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds. The ruling has triggered a surge in demand for trade lawyers and created opportunities for hedge funds and AI firms to profit from the refund process.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs — The US Supreme Court ruled on 20 February 2026 that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing far-reaching global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found the tariffs unlawful but did not address whether the Trump administration must repay an estimated $133 billion in collected tariffs, leaving the refund question to lower courts. Trump immediately signaled intent to reintroduce tariffs via alternative legal authority.
• Former South Korean President Sentenced to Life in Prison — The Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison for leading an insurrection against the government. Yoon had declared martial law in December 2024, attempting to block the National Assembly and arrest opposition politicians. His actions were deemed unconstitutional, leading to his impeachment and removal from office. The court considered his age and lack of lethal force in its sentencing.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs unconstitutional — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court declared President Trump's tariffs unconstitutional. Following this ruling, Trump claimed the right to impose tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." Trump was the first president to invoke this provision, and his use of it has already been challenged in court.
• U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Trump's IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional in 6–3 decision — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed under emergency declarations citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), violated the Constitution. Trump had declared national emergencies regarding drug influx and trade deficits to justify sweeping tariff increases that upended post-World War II free trade principles. The Court found that Congress alone holds constitutional authority to tax Americans, and that Trump's tariff authority under IEEPA did not extend to the broad economic restructuring he imposed. The ruling invalidated tariffs that had cost American households an estimated $1,000–$1,700 in 2025 and slowed economic growth to 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under IEEPA — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. The majority (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor) rejected the government's tariff authority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation.
• Supreme Court ruled against Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorized tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff authority — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously read IEEPA to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented. The majority included Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff power — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff authority — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority supported the opposite reading.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff power — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority and that IEEPA clearly authorized the power. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariffs — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, with Kavanaugh arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump cannot use emergency powers to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Solicitor General granted amicus participation and divided argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation and commerce.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (24-1287) — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that "until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power." Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts; Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and no President had previously read it to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority; Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the statute grants sufficient authority for tariff imposition. The ruling represents the Court's most significant rebuke of the Trump administration since his return to office.
• — The Supreme Court granted the Solicitor General's motion to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and to conduct divided argument in the pending case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. (Docket 24-1238). This procedural grant permits the federal government to present oral argument alongside the parties and allows argument time to be divided among multiple speakers.
• — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Docket number(s): 24-1287.

Supporting reports

• Senator Welch announces resolution to block Trump's threatened tariffs on European allies — Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) announced plans to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to terminate tariffs Trump threatened to impose on eight European countries, including NATO allies Denmark, UK, Germany, and France. Trump had threatened a 10% levy beginning in February, escalating to 25% by June unless the US could acquire Greenland. The resolution would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a presidential veto. Representative Gregory Meeks and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated Democrats would introduce additional resolutions and binding legislation.

Supporting reports

• Republican-led Senate passed bill to overturn Trump tariffs on Brazil — The Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill that would overturn Trump's tariffs against Brazil by terminating the national emergency the president declared in July because the country moved forward with the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro for staging an attempted coup in 2022. Five Republicans voted in favor of the bill, including Senator Mitch McConnell. The bill now moves to the House, where it is unlikely to pass.
• US Senate passes resolution to block Trump tariffs on Brazil — The US Senate voted 52-48 to approve a resolution terminating Trump's 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports, including coffee and beef. Five Republicans—Murkowski, Collins, Paul, Tillis, and McConnell—joined all Democrats in the bipartisan rebuke. The resolution, led by Senator Tim Kaine, would overturn the national emergency Trump declared to justify the levies. The measure is expected to stall in the Republican-controlled House and faces certain presidential veto if it reaches Trump's desk.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court schedules oral arguments on Trump tariff legality — The US Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments on November 5, 2025, regarding the legality of President Trump's sweeping global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A federal appeals court had ruled in August that Trump overstepped his authority by using a law meant for emergencies to impose broad tariffs without congressional approval. The case was placed on a fast track. A Supreme Court defeat could halve the current average US effective tariff rate and force repayment of tens of billions in collected tariffs.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rules Trump exceeded presidential authority on tariff imposition — A federal appeals court found that Trump overstepped his presidential authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries earlier in 2025, including a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners and reciprocal tariffs on specific nations. The ruling sent shock waves across global markets. The Trump administration subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling — Following a federal appeals court ruling that Trump exceeded his presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Treasury Secretary Bessent expressed confidence the conservative-majority court would side with the administration, stating there were "numerous other avenues" available if the court ruled against them.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling and expedite decision — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D John Sauer, filed with the Supreme Court requesting the justices decide by Wednesday 10 September whether to take the case. Sauer argued the appeals court's decision had "disrupted highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations" and cast legal uncertainty over the president's tariff efforts. The administration requested oral argument in the first week of November and claimed any adverse ruling would "destroy" the US financial fabric.
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules Trump's tariffs exceed presidential authority — The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump's tariffs "assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations" of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law the administration invoked. The court found that the word "tariff" does not appear in IEEPA and questioned whether the statute grants the president sufficient power to impose tariffs. The appeals court paused its ruling, allowing tariffs to remain in place until 14 October while the case proceeds to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed emergency appeal on tariff ruling — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling that found the majority of the president's tariffs illegal, claiming in the filing that tariffs "are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity" and warning that a failure to allow them to move forward "would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe." The administration also filed a motion to expedite the case.
• Trump petitions Supreme Court to overturn federal appeals court tariff ruling — President Trump filed a petition with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 4, 2025, challenging a federal appeals court decision that struck down most of his "liberation day" tariffs imposed on April 2, 2025. The lower court ruled 7-4 that Trump overstepped his presidential powers by invoking a 1977 national emergency law to justify reciprocal tariffs of 10–50% on imports. Trump requested expedited review with arguments by November 10 and a ruling by year-end. The tariffs remain in place pending Supreme Court review.
• Trump appeals tariff ruling to Supreme Court — A federal appeals court ruled 7-4 that Trump exceeded presidential authority by imposing tariffs on nearly every country without statutory authorization. The court found that while the president has emergency powers, none permit unilateral tariff or tax imposition. Trump has already petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, signaling the case will likely reach the conservative-majority bench.

Supporting reports

• US Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in VOS Selections v Trump tariff challenge — The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on July 29, 2025, in VOS Selections v Trump, a lawsuit brought by small business owners challenging President Trump's tariff authority. The plaintiffs argue Trump lacks legal power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on major trading partners. The Trump administration claims the IEEPA authorizes tariffs based on national emergencies including trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking. A federal court previously ruled in May that Trump exceeded his trade law powers; that ruling was paused pending this appeals court decision.
• Federal appeals court hears challenge to Trump's reciprocal tariffs under emergency powers — The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral arguments on July 31, 2025, examining whether President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose reciprocal tariffs on trading partners without congressional consultation. A three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade had blocked the tariffs in May; the appeals court stayed that ruling pending Thursday's hearing. The administration argued the trade deficit constitutes an emergency; challengers (five small businesses and 12 Democratic-controlled states) contended IEEPA does not authorize tariffs and that Trump's claim to unilateral emergency power is unprecedented in 200 years.
• Court to Weigh Legality of Trump's Tariffs — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is set to review the legality of tariffs imposed by President Trump, which he has enacted under emergency powers, affecting international trade relations.
• U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit to rule on legality of Trump tariffs — On July 31, 2025, the day before the August 1 deadline on which most of Trump's tariffs will go into effect, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is scheduled to weigh in on whether those tariffs are legal. This ruling will determine whether the administration's use of emergency authority to impose tariffs withstands judicial scrutiny.
• DOJ argued case on Trump tariff authority lawsuit — The Department of Justice argued in court today on a lawsuit challenging Trump's constitutional authority to issue tariffs without congressional approval. Trump posted a statement expressing confidence in his legal team and asserting that tariffs are necessary for national survival and economic success.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court pauses ruling overturning Trump’s tariffs — An appeals court has temporarily paused a federal court ruling that overturned many of Donald Trump’s tariffs, allowing the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals court reviews the arguments. The initial ruling had declared Trump's blanket 10% tariffs illegal, stating that he should have sought Congressional approval first. However, the pause means that the tariffs will continue to be enforced until a final decision is made by the appeals court.
• U.S. Court of Appeals pauses ruling on Trump's tariffs — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit paused the ruling that deemed Trump's tariffs illegal until at least June 9, allowing the government to appeal the decision.
• Court rulings against tariffs prompt administration appeal — In the past week, several court rulings have been issued against the Trump administration's tariffs, leading the administration to initiate appeals. These legal challenges could significantly impact the implementation of the tariffs and the overall economic landscape.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court grants temporary pause on ruling against Trump tariffs — An appeals court has granted a temporary pause on a ruling by the New York-based court of international trade that declared Donald Trump's tariffs illegal. The initial ruling stated that Trump's tariffs exceeded the authority granted to the president, as they were not approved by Congress and were based on a claimed national emergency. The Trump administration has filed for emergency relief to avoid economic and national security harms and is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. The ruling has significant implications for Trump's trade policy and its impact on global markets.
• Motion granted — Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00077 — The Federal Circuit granted Defendants' motion to consolidate the appeal with V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump , No. 25-1812, and granted an administrative stay while the case is on appeal.
• Motion granted — V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00066 — The Federal Circuit granted Defendants' motion to consolidate the appeal with State of Oregon v. Trump , No. 25-1813, and granted an administrative stay while the case is on appeal.

Supporting reports

• Appeal filed — Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00077 — The court granted plaintiffs summary judgment holding the tariffs unlawful. Defendants immediately appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit.
• Summary judgment ruling — V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00066 — The court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment holding the tariffs unlawful.
• Federal Courts Rule Trump's Tariffs Unconstitutional — Two federal courts have ruled that the majority of tariffs imposed by former President Trump violate the Constitution. The U.S. Court of International Trade in New York and a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found that Trump exceeded his authority by using emergency powers to bypass Congress's taxing authority. The rulings declared the "Liberation Day" tariffs illegal, though tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel, and aluminum remain due to a specific federal statute. Trump has filed an emergency appeal, and a federal appeals court has issued a temporary stay pending further arguments.
• Court ruling blocks Trump's reciprocal tariffs — A court ruling has temporarily blocked former President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs, which were challenged by the Liberty Justice Center and a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorney generals. The lawsuit argued that Trump overstepped his executive authority by enacting broad tariffs without Congress's approval, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as insufficient for such actions. The court found that the IEEPA does not grant the president unbounded tariff authority. The ruling is on hold pending an appeal by the Trump administration, which may escalate to the US Supreme Court.
• US Court Blocks Trump's Tariff Plan — A US federal court has ruled against Donald Trump's "liberation day" tariff plan, declaring it illegal. The court found that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China did not meet the required test of "unusual and extraordinary threats." The White House has filed a notice of appeal, allowing the tariffs to remain in place as the case progresses. This ruling challenges Trump's trade policies and could impact ongoing trade negotiations with several countries.
• Court Rules Trump's Tariffs Illegal — A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that President Donald J. Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs are illegal, stating that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to impose tariffs. The court blocked all tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, citing that Trump's use of this power exceeded constitutional limits. The administration plans to appeal the ruling.
• US International Court of Trade Blocks Trump's Tariffs — A panel of judges on the US International Court of Trade blocked a significant portion of President Trump's broad tariffs, including country-specific import duties such as those placed on China. This decision was in response to lawsuits arguing that Trump was improperly using federal trade law to implement tariffs without Congress's approval. However, within 24 hours, a federal appeals court paused the ruling, allowing Trump's tariffs to remain in place for the time being.
• US Trade Court Blocks Trump's Tariffs — A US trade court temporarily halted President Donald Trump's controversial tariff policy, which imposed levies on various countries. The court ruled that Trump's actions exceeded the authority granted to the president, suggesting that congressional approval was necessary for such tariffs. However, a different court later reversed this decision, allowing the tariffs to continue while legal proceedings are ongoing. The case may eventually reach the Supreme Court, where it could test the "major questions doctrine" regarding presidential authority over significant national regulations.

Supporting reports

• Senate Resolution to Undo Trump Tariffs Blocked — A Senate resolution aimed at repealing tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump was blocked. The resolution, sponsored by Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Ron Wyden, sought to challenge the national emergency declaration used to justify the tariffs. Despite support from all attending Democrats and two moderate Republicans, the resolution deadlocked at 49-49. Vice-President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to ensure the resolution's failure. Additionally, the GOP-controlled House enacted a rule to delay consideration of the resolution until at least the end of September.

Supporting reports

• Senate passes resolution to rescind Trump Canada tariffs with bipartisan support — The Senate passed a resolution 51-48 to block Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada, with four Republicans—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell, and Rand Paul—joining all Democrats. The measure would terminate the national emergency on fentanyl that Trump invoked to justify the tariffs. Trump announced sweeping new tariffs on Wednesday and vowed not to sign the resolution if it reached his desk. The House, controlled by Republicans, is unlikely to pass similar legislation.
• Four Republican senators vote to rescind Canada tariffs via Democratic resolution — Four Republican senators—Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski—voted in favor of a Democratic Senate resolution (tabled by Tim Kaine) to rescind the 25% tariffs on Canadian products, defying Trump's public appeal against the measure. The resolution lacks force of law but signals deep party fracture over tariff policy.
• Senate passes resolution to block tariffs on Canadian products — The Senate passed a resolution to block Trump's tariffs on Canadian products. Four Republicans—Susan Collins (ME), Mitch McConnell (KY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Rand Paul (KY)—joined Democrats to pass the measure. House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated he is unlikely to bring the measure to a vote in the House, effectively preventing congressional override of the tariff declaration.
• Senate passes resolution to eliminate Trump tariffs on Canadian imports — On April 2, the Senate passed a resolution to eliminate Trump's tariffs on Canadian imports, with Republicans Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Rand Paul joining all Democrats to support the resolution. The bipartisan vote reflected congressional opposition to the tariff policy.
• Trump demands Senate Republicans vote against tariff resolution on Truth Social — Trump posted on Truth Social demanding Senate Republicans vote to keep the national emergency in effect to "finish the job" on tariffs. He attacked Senator Kaine and warned that Democratic victory on the resolution would be "devastating for the Republican Party and, far more importantly, for the United States." The post represented direct presidential pressure on his party's senators to block the bipartisan resolution.
• Senate Republicans consider joining Democrats on resolution to terminate Trump's emergency tariff order on Canada — Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution to terminate Trump's emergency order justifying tariffs on Canadian imports, citing fentanyl concerns. Several Senate Republicans, including Rand Paul and Susan Collins, signaled support or co-sponsorship. Trump responded with a Truth Social post demanding Republicans vote to keep the emergency in effect. Senate Majority Leader John Thune prepared to urge Republicans to oppose the resolution. A vote was expected as early as Tuesday or Wednesday.