{"id":151459,"date":"2025-05-29T19:32:59","date_gmt":"2025-05-29T19:32:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/trump-administration-to-go-to-supreme-court-on-friday-if-unable-to-block-tariff-ruling-bbc\/"},"modified":"2025-05-29T19:32:59","modified_gmt":"2025-05-29T19:32:59","slug":"trump-administration-to-go-to-supreme-court-on-friday-if-unable-to-block-tariff-ruling-bbc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/trump-administration-to-go-to-supreme-court-on-friday-if-unable-to-block-tariff-ruling-bbc\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump administration to go to Supreme Court on Friday if unable to block tariff ruling – BBC"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration says it will go to the Supreme Court on Friday<\/a> if it is unable to block the tariffs ruling
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says "we will win this battle in court"<\/a> and the administration is working to "tackle rogue judges"<\/a>
A federal court blocked most of Trump's sweeping tariffs after three judges ruled Trump overstepped his authority, in a major blow to his economic policies<\/a>
The ruling raises the real question about whether Trump's wider so-called reciprocal tariffs will ever come into effect, writes our economics editor Faisal Islam<\/a>
Moments after the ruling, the Trump administration said it was "not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency"
What are tariffs, what did the court say, and what happens now?<\/i> Here's our 148-word explainer<\/i><\/a>
Edited by Jenna Moon
Asya Robins and Hafsa Khalil<\/strong>
Live reporters<\/span>
Trump announced his tariff policy back in April
Last night, the Court of International Trade ruled that an emergency law invoked by the White House does not give US President Donald Trump unilateral authority to slap tariffs on nearly every country.
The Trump administration says it will go to the Supreme Court on Friday, unless an appeals court grants its request to block the ruling.
Here's a recap of how markets have reacted:<\/b><\/p>\n

And here's a look at our team's analysis of the ruling:<\/b><\/p>\n

We will be pausing our live coverage for the day – thank you for joining us. For even more on this story, you can <\/i>check out our news article<\/a>.<\/i>
\"\"<\/span><\/span>Bernd Debusmann Jr<\/strong>
Reporting from the White House<\/span>
Donald Trump's cabinet has reacted with fury to the court's decision on tariffs – with White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller going as far as to describe the ruling as a "judicial coup".
Another White House official, spokesperson Kush Desai, said it is "not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency".
While the clash with the courts over tariffs is among the most high-profile of the administration, Trump and his administration have often found themselves thwarted, even if only temporarily, by federal judges.
This has perhaps been most evident when it comes to immigration policy, on everything from deportation flights to the bid to end birth-right citizenship of those born in the US – each prompting a flurry of legal battles.
In another case this week, a court prevented Trump's administration from revoking Harvard's permission to enrol foreign students on visas.
These clashes with have put judges in the crosshairs of the administration, which believes that judges have too much power over the functions of the US executive.
The outcome of these battles, experts warn, will be able to set precedent and continue to have impact long after Trump leaves the White House.
We've just heard from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who laid out the Trump administration's stance on the federal court ruling that blocked most of the president's tariffs.
Here's what she said:
\"\"<\/span><\/span>Jonathan Josephs<\/strong>
BBC business reporter<\/span>
Prior to Leavitt's comments, I spoke to one of the lawyers who worked on the case central to the trade court's decision.
The case that was decided on at the Court for International Trade was brought by a group of five small businesses, with the help of the non-profit law firm the Liberty Justice Center.
One of the centre\u2019s lawyers who worked on the case is Jeffrey Schwab and he\u2019s clarified to the BBC that its suspension of tariffs applies to all of the \u2018Liberation Day\u2019 tariffs that President Trump announced on 2 April, as well as the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico that were announced separately.
The judgement is based on what President Trump has tried to do under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and in it there is an explanation of some of the other legal options he has in order to change US trade policy.
However, Schwab says: \u201cThose statutes also have certain procedures and limitations to them, so it is not entirely clear that the president could do exactly the same thing on the same timeline\u201d.
What he\u2019s pointing to is that the other options President Trump has are likely to take longer to implement and would give him less leeway when it comes to details such as what rate tariffs are charged at.
Leavitt's just told the White House press briefing room: "We will win this battle in court."
She had been asked whether Trump had spoken to any other nations about the trade court's decision, to which she says Trump has spoken to Japan's Shigeru Ishiba and had a "very good discussion".
"We still expect countries around the world to treat us fairly," she says about international trade.
She tells the press that the court is trying to stop Trump from "correcting the wrongs of the past".
Leavitt says the Trump administration will consider other avenues to carry out trade policy despite decision yesterday.
She says the president has other legal authorities that he could use. She is asked if the White House is already reviewing those other avenues or waiting to see the current case play out, Leavitt says they are doing both.
"We can walk and chew gum," she says.
Leavitt is now asked why other countries would continue trade negotiations with the US after the court ruling on tariffs.
She says other countries around the world have "faith" in Trump, who she described as "the negotiator in chief". She adds that other countries "see how ridiculous" the ruling is.
The press secretary adds that "we intend to win" the legal battle against the ruling – referring to the Trump administration saying it would go to the Supreme Court if it's unable to block the ruling.
Karoline Leavitt continues, saying that the US ambassador for trade has heard from countries this morning that they intend to continue with trade negotiations with America.
Leavitt is asked by a reporter from the conservative outlet The Federalist, who is seating in the "new media" seat today, if there is an "actual effort" by the White House to "tackle" judges and nationwide injunctions.
She replies: "There is an effort to tackle rogue judges and the injunctions."
She says the White House will fight every single one of the legal challenges the administration has faced including "radical injunctions".
The three judges that made the ruling overturning Trump's tariffs "brazenly abused" their judicial power, Leavitt says.
She claims that they have used their judicial powers to stop the president from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him when he won the presidential election last year.
Leavitt says "courts should have no role here" and that there is a "trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the legislative process", adding that trade negotiations shouldn't be "railroaded" by them.
These judges are threatening to "undermine" the US's credibility on the global stage, she says.
White House press Secretary Karoline Leavitt begins the briefing with a blistering critique of today's ruling. She says their decision was an example of "judicial overreach" by the judges.
She says Trump introduced tariffs to tackle US trade deficits with other nations, which she describes as an extraordinary threat to national security and the economy.
Trump's tariffs were "legally sound," she says, adding that the tariffs were we "long overdue" and "bold stance" on the trade deficit.
We're due to shortly hear from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as she holds a news briefing.
This is a regularly scheduled briefing, so we expect her to deliver the White House's official response to a range of questions, not just on the latest ruling on the Trump administration's sweeping tariffs
Stay with us as we bring you the latest from Washington DC.
The Trump administration is trying to get higher courts to reverse yesterday's decision.
It is already looking at a potential challenge at the US Supreme Court where conservatives have 6-3 majority on the bench.
Yesterday's decision restrains Trump's efforts to renegotiate trade deals with countries, says the BBC's Senior North America reporter Anthony Zurcher.
"It is going to make it difficult for Donald Trump to go to foreign countries, to the EU and say: 'This is the grounds for the threats we are going to use if you don't accede to our demands', when it's not clear they are going to be able to follow through on those threats," he said.
Until the legal questions about whether Congress or the president has the authority to impose tariffs, it may be difficult for the administration to make any substantive changes to US trading relationships.
The White House says the Court of International Trade's ruling on Trump's tariffs is "blatantly wrong".
"We are confident this decision will be overturned on appeal," it says on X.
"Unelected judges shouldn\u2019t stand in the way of the Executive Branch\u2019s lawful use of powers to address national security and foreign policy," it adds in a subsequent post.
\"\"<\/span><\/span>Natalie Sherman<\/strong>
New York business reporter<\/span>
The Trump administration says it will go to the Supreme Court on Friday, unless an appeals court grants its request to block the tariffs ruling.
In a new filing at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the administration asks the court to immediately halt the order barring its Liberation Day and fentanyl tariffs.
It calls the order by the trade court a \u201clegally indefensible\u201d action that would block policies central to its economic and foreign policy agendas and threatens to unwind months of diplomatic negotiations.
\"\"<\/span><\/span>Natalie Sherman<\/strong>
New York business reporter<\/span>
US shares had bounced after last night\u2019s ruling in the trade court.
However the initial jubilation by investors seems to be wearing off, as the White House signals it is preparing for a legal battle.
At midday, the Dow Jones is down about 0.6%, the S&P 500 has dipped about 0.1%, while the Nasdaq is trading roughly flat.
Following the court overturning many of Donald Trump's tariff plans, here's a summary of what we know the judgement will impact so far:
What is affected? <\/b>
The court ruled that Trump doesn't have the power to impose the sweeping tariffs under emergency law, meaning his plans to impose a baseline 10% tariff on all nations – as well as higher levies on certain countries – have been blocked.
China and Mexico where among those facing a higher 25% rate on imports, while Canada faced an additional 10% on energy supplies to the US.
A 30% rate on Chinese imports, which includes 20% aimed at putting pressure on Beijing to do more to curb the illegal trade in the powerful opioid drug fentanyl, has also been blocked.
Which tariffs remain?<\/b>
The court was not asked to address tariffs imposed on some specific goods like cars, steel and aluminium, which fall under a different law.
This means all steel and aluminium entering the US – including products made from these metals – faces a 25% tariff, while foreign made cars, engines and other vehicle parts also still subject to a 25% tariff
\"\"<\/span><\/span>Jonathan Josephs<\/strong>
BBC business reporter<\/span>
The European Union, China and many other countries have been scrambling to get some kind of trade deal in place before President Trump\u2019s 8 July deadline.<\/a>
The question now is whether they need to continue at quite such a frantic pace or even at all.
Whatever the courts ultimately decide on the legality of these particular tariffs, President Trump has put a lot of energy into his trade agenda.
His complaints about other countries can be boiled down into two areas:
This case is testing the president\u2019s powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act<\/a> of 1977.
Given how high a priority trade policy has been in his second term its highly likely President Trump will explore other routes to get the changes he wants on global trade.
India\u2019s chief trade negotiator with the US has today said talks \u201care progressing well\u201d and so it seems they and other countries are likely to need to continue trying to find a way to settle their differences with the US.
Steve in Cambridge asks: What proportion of people outside of America are boycotting US goods as a result of Trump's tariffs?
"The biggest impact as far as we can tell has been in Canada," BBC Verify's Ben Chu says.
Pointing to Canada by example, Chu says: "There\u2019s been lots of talk and lots of evidence of boycotts of American products."
"Given those countries are so economically interlinked, there\u2019s a lot of targets there."
He adds that Tesla has seen "sales drop in the UK and Europe" and that has been attributed to the fact that the electric car company's CEO, Elon Musk, is "very, very close to Donald Trump and the Trump administration".
However, Chu adds that there's "nothing in the data yet which suggests this is a very large macroeconomic effect, but if this continues, then you may well see it".
Ilya Somin, the co-counsel who brought the lawsuit against the tariffs along with the Liberty Justice Centre, spoke to the BBC World Service's World Business Report earlier today.
\u201cWe're very happy at the ruling," he said.
Somin, who is also professor of law at George Mason University and the Kenneth B Simon chair in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, said the court "recognised that the president made a massive and illegal power grab".
"We hope also that the ruling will be sustained on appeal," he added.
Turning again now to another of your questions, the next one being from Kevin. He asks why it's taken so long for Trump's tariffs to be challenged since he announced them on 2 April.
The BBC's North America business correspondent Erin Delmore says it "depends on how you look at it", explaining that "these cases were brought weeks ago".
"The proceedings have been going on for a while in the courts themselves, so these cases were brought in April and now at the end of May we\u2019re seeing this decision handed down."
Copyright \u00a9 2025 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.<\/a><\/p>\n

source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration says it will go to the Supreme Court on Friday if it is unable to block the tariffs rulingWhite House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says "we will win this battle in court" and the administration is working to "tackle rogue judges"A federal court blocked most of Trump's sweeping tariffs after three judges […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":151460,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-us","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151459\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/151460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}