A federal court fight over President Donald Trump’s authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court for review, legal experts told Fox News Digital, in a case that has already proved to be a pivotal test of executive branch authority.
At issue in the case is Trump’s ability to use a 1977 emergency law to unilaterally slap steep import duties on a long list of countries doing business with the U.S.
In interviews with Fox News Digital, longtime trade lawyers and lawyers who argued on behalf of plaintiffs in court last week said they expect the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a matter of ‘weeks,’ or sometime in August or September – in line with the court’s agreement to hear the case on an ‘expedited’ basis.
The fast-track timeline reflects the important question before the court: whether Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he launched his sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.
Importantly, that timing would still allow the Supreme Court to add the case to their docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins in early October. That could allow them to rule on the matter as early as the end of the year.
Both Trump administration officials and lawyers for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if the lower court does not rule in their favor. And given the questions at the heart of the case, it is widely expected that the high court will take up the case for review.
In the meantime, the impact of Trump’s tariffs remains to be seen.
Legal experts and trade analysts alike said last week’s hearing is unlikely to forestall the broader market uncertainty created by Trump’s tariffs, which remain in force after the appeals court agreed to stay a lower court decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Judges on the three-judge CIT panel in May blocked Trump’s use of IEEPA to stand up his tariffs, ruling unanimously that he did not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under that law.
Thursday’s argument gave little indication as to how the appeals court would rule, plaintiffs and longtime trade attorneys told Fox News Digital, citing the tough questions that the 11 judges on the panel posed for both parties.
Dan Pickard, an attorney specializing in international trade and national security issues at the firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said the oral arguments Thursday did not seem indicative of how the 11-judge panel might rule.
‘I don’t know if I walked out of that hearing thinking that either the government is going to prevail, or that this is dead on arrival,’ Pickard told Fox News Digital. ‘I think it was more mixed.’
Lawyers for the plaintiffs echoed that assessment – a reflection of the 11 judges on the appeals bench, who had fewer chances to speak up or question the government or plaintiffs during the 45 minutes each had to present their case.
‘I want to be very clear that I’m not in any way, shape or form, predicting what the Federal Circuit will do – I leave that for them,’ one lawyer for the plaintiffs told reporters after court, adding that the judges, in his view, posed ‘really tough questions’ for both parties.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who helped represent the 12 states suing over the plan, told Fox News Digital they are ‘optimistic’ that, based on the oral arguments, they would see at least a partial win in the case, though he also stressed the ruling and the time frame is fraught with uncertainty.
In the interim, the White House forged ahead with enacting Trump’s tariffs as planned.
Pickard, who has argued many cases before the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, noted that the oral arguments are not necessarily the best barometer for gauging the court’s next steps – something lawyers for the plaintiffs also stressed after the hearing.
Even if the high court blocks the Trump administration from using IEEPA, they have a range of other trade tools at their disposal, trade lawyers told Fox News.
The Trump administration ‘has had more of a focus on trade issues than pretty much any other administration in my professional life,’ Pickard said.
‘And let’s assume, even for the sake of the argument, just hypothetically, that the Supreme Court says this use of IEEPA exceeded your statutory authority. The Trump administration is not going to say, like, ‘All right, well, we’re done. I guess we’re just going to abandon any trade policy.’
‘There are going to be additional [trade] tools that had been in the toolbox for long that can be taken out and dusted off,’ he said. ‘There are plenty of other legal authorities for the president.
‘I don’t think we’re seeing an end to these issues anytime soon – this is going to continue to be battled out in the courts for a while.’
Both Pickard and Rayfield told Fox News Digital in separate interviews that they expect the appeals court to rule within weeks, not days.
The hearing came after Trump on April 2 announced a 10% baseline tariff on all countries, along with higher, reciprocal tariffs targeting select nations, including China. The measures, he said, were aimed at addressing trade imbalances, reducing deficits with key trading partners, and boosting domestic manufacturing and production.
Ahead of last week’s oral arguments, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said lawyers for the administration would continue to defend the president’s trade agenda in court.
Justice Department attorneys ‘are going to court to defend [Trump’s] tariffs,’ she said, describing them as ‘transforming the global economy, protecting our national security and addressing the consequences of our exploding trade deficit.’
‘We will continue to defend the president,’ she vowed.
