A U.S. appeals court ruling that invalidated Donald Trump’s global tariffs also implicitly dismissed one of his more controversial justifications: that the policy was a necessary response to the fentanyl crisis. The court found that the emergency law used was inappropriate for setting tariffs, regardless of the stated emergency.
The Trump administration had argued, in the case of countries like China, Mexico, and Canada, that the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. contributed to a national emergency that warranted a tariff response under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This linked a public health crisis to a broad-based economic penalty.
However, the court’s decision focused on the legal mechanics of the IEEPA itself, concluding that the statute simply does not authorize the imposition of tariffs. By ruling that the tool was wrong for the job, the court sidestepped a direct judgment on the validity of the emergency but made it clear that tariffs under this law were not a permissible response.
Legal analysts noted that connecting tariffs to the fentanyl crisis was a novel, and legally tenuous, strategy. The court’s refusal to accept this framework reinforces the idea that emergency powers, even when invoked for a legitimate crisis, cannot be used to justify actions that the underlying law does not permit.