Australia has vowed to continue its campaign for the complete removal of US tariffs imposed under President Donald Trump, following a decision by the US Court of International Trade that blocked the so-called “liberation day” duties from taking effect.
The Manhattan court ruled that only Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate international trade, and that President Trump’s invocation of emergency powers did not override that mandate.
Australia has affirmed its position against US tariffs
According to The Guardian, within minutes of the ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal. The contested measures included a 10% tariff on virtually all Australian exports to the United States, with certain products such as steel and aluminium facing levies as high as 25%, which the court did not address.
Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell welcomed the judgment but stressed that legal wrangling may continue.
“We will analyse this decision carefully and note it could be challenged further in higher courts,” he said.
Farrell reaffirmed Canberra’s position that the duties on Australian goods are unwarranted and pledged to press Washington to quash them entirely.
“The Albanese Government will persist in its efforts to protect Australian jobs and industries.”
Farrell.
The court found that Trump exceeded his authority by enacting broad tariffs without congressional approval. In its opinion, a three-judge panel noted that while it did not evaluate the policy merits of the tariffs, federal law simply does not permit the president to impose sweeping trade duties as a unilateral exercise of emergency powers.
Trump announced the tariffs on April 2, dubbing the date “America’s liberation day.”
Two lawsuits prompted the decision – one brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US importers, from a New York wine distributor to a Virginia maker of educational kits and musical instruments, and another by a coalition of 13 states.
Plaintiffs argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statute Trump cited, does not authorize global, across-the-board tariffs. Their filings described Trump’s declared trade deficit “emergency” as a fabrication, noting such deficits have long existed without triggering economic calamity.
US says the court ruling is a ‘judicial coup’
The briefs even highlighted the absurdity of duties applied to Australia’s uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands, home only to wildlife.
Despite the setback, financial analysts caution that the legal battle is far from over. Kyle Rodda, senior market analyst at Capital.com in Melbourne, called the ruling “a landmark decision” but warned it is likely headed to the Supreme Court. He suggested the administration might defy the ruling, further stressing US institutions at a sensitive time.
Sean Callow, senior analyst at Sydney’s ITC Markets, urged caution, noting that if upheld, the decision could mitigate “self-inflicted economic harm,” potentially supporting US growth and buoying the dollar in the near term.
Neither the White House nor representatives for the importers immediately responded to requests for comment. However, Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and senior Trump advisor, criticized the decision on social media, declaring that “the judicial coup is out of control.”
At least five additional legal challenges to the tariff regime remain pending. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who led the states’ lawsuit, applauded the court’s decision.
“This ruling affirms that our laws matter, and that trade policy cannot be made on a president’s whim.”
Rayfield.
Under US law, trade barriers such as tariffs must generally be enacted by Congress. IEEPA was designed to authorize sanctions and asset freezes against foreign enemies during bona fide national emergencies.
According to The Guardian, Trump’s use of the act to impose tariffs marks an unprecedented expansion of presidential power in trade policy, and one that now faces serious constitutional scrutiny.
