The U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled that U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempts to unilaterally raise tariffs are “invalid and cannot be implemented,” throwing the president’s ongoing trade negotiations into uncertainty.
However, the U.S. Department of Justice quickly appealed the ruling, and on 29 May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the trade court’s ruling while it considers motions from both sides.
Since the start of his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs on all foreign goods using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – 1977 legislation that gives the president additional authority during a national emergency. On 2 April, Trump declared that “foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency,” granting him the power to unilaterally set tariffs. That same day, the president announced sweeping tariffs in an event he dubbed “Liberation Day,” with a minimum 10 percent rate for all foreign goods and higher rates for the countries with the highest trade deficits with the U.S.
While Trump quickly delayed implementation of the tariffs after a negative reaction from the market, they are still set to go into effect 9 July.
A coalition of attorneys general from several states sued Trump in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that Trump’s actions were illegal.
In a 28 May ruling, the federal court sided with the attorneys general, determining that Trump’s imposition of tariffs – including a whopping 125 percent tariff on goods from China – using the IEEPA exceeded his authority.
“The Trump administration’s illegal tariffs harm businesses, consumers, and states across the nation and it is our responsibility as state leaders to advocate and defend our people against this chaos; this is exactly what California’s sister states have done with this case,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “The Court of International Trade has agreed with our sister states and with California and permanently halted the President’s illegal tariffs. IEEPA does not authorize the Trump Administration to impose these tariffs. We are pleased with the court’s decision in this case and are proud to have supported our sister states’ arguments.”
The Trump administration will hope to have more success defending their tariffs before the appeals court. If the appeals court sides with the trade court’s ruling, companies that paid duties on illegitimate tariffs could be reimbursed.
Trump could also seek to impose his tariffs using other legal justifications, although those avenues aren’t quite as attractive to the administration.
“Without IEEPA, there is no instrument they can wield to impose immediate ‘reciprocal’ tariffs on each of our trading partners. Indeed, they would have to follow the law and pursue the Sections 232, 301, and 201 of the Trade Act,” Zack Hadzismajlovic, an international trade partner at McCarter & English who heads the Global Trade, CFIUS, and Export Controls practice, told SeafoodSource.
Trump has insisted that his tariff threats have improved the negotiating position of the U.S. in trade talks.
“Because I gave the European Union a 50 percent tax tariff, they called up and said, ‘Please, let’s meet right now? Please, let’s meet right now?’” Trump told reporters 28 May. “They said, ‘We’ll meet any time you want.’”
“It’s called negotiation; you set a number and you go down,” he added.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Trump shortly after he threatened 50 percent tariffs on goods from the European Union, securing a delay on the tariff increase and opening trade talks with the U.S.
However, the International Trade Court’s ruling now undermines Trump’s threat, leaving the future of trade talks even more uncertain. Politico has reported that in defending Trump’s tariffs in court, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said a court ruling against the president would “kneecap” his ability to secure favorable trade deals before the tariffs are currently set to go into effect 9 July.
“An injunction would be extremely disruptive while the president is in the middle of foreign negotiations with other countries about trade deficits and about the fentanyl crisis,” Shumate said.
Hadzismajlovic agreed.
"In sum and substance, the Court of International Trade (CIT) kicked out the stool from under the administration’s entire trade and economic plan,” he told SeafoodSource. “If you are a foreign sovereign, this is a good time to pause and reconsider your tariff negotiation posture. Let the courts argue your case for you.”
Still, the threat of tariffs has already led to uncertainty in the seafood sector, with the tariffs contirbuting to higher shipping costs, price increases at the retail level, and the cancellation of seafood orders. At the 2025 Seafood Expo Global, which took place from 6 to 8 May in Barcelona, Spain, experts said the ongoing trade war has set seafood buyers and suppliers scrambling to find new trade partners to avoid the worst tariff rates.
“The recent round of trade restrictions and tariffs that were announced in the United States have triggered a scramble among seafood suppliers and distributors and wholesalers and retailers to constantly adapt – maybe on a daily basis – to an ever-changing trade environment,” Matthew Latimer, managing director and general counsel of ACT Capital Advisors, said.
Despite the challenges posed by higher tariffs, International Seafood Partners CEO Jeff Davis said he was confident the seafood sector would be able to navigate them.
“Tariffs have been around a long time. We’ve had it in the past; industry survived it. We’ll survive this round,” Davis said.
