The Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs — But Whose Interests Does It Serve?
- lhpgop
- May 28
- 5 min read
"The bulk of President Trump's tariffs have reached a standstill after a three-judge panel in a Manhattan court ruled to bring them to a halt". CNN 5/28/2025
Yet another triumphant headline for the opposition to Donald Trump's evil tariff scheme. The orangeman, vanquished before he can destroy mankind.. The images swarm about one's eyes.
Except.
Except that there is no real victory here. There is no parade, no tickertape, no trophy or key to the city.. because long ago, the parade had already moved on.
It is a credit to the media that they are able to keep some things, like Trump having stopped a nuclear war between Pakistan and India and, in this case, the facat that the tariff war was almost over.. out of the view of the American public should say something about the silo-ing of America and how alone one can be in an internet of billions.
So, let's take a look at the staggering defeat that Trump did not face at the hands of a bunch of "patriotic" Americans (who were most probably proxies of outside interests) either way, let's roll'em.
Introduction
In a landmark decision issued today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled against the Trump Administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. Framing them as an overreach of executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the court permanently enjoined the tariffs’ enforcement.
On its face, the ruling appears to protect small business and constitutional order. But beneath the surface lies a more cynical possibility: that the litigation was never about protecting domestic commerce, but rather a strategic proxy strike — a legal sabotage timed to benefit foreign interests and to clip the wings of a President whose aggressive trade posture has unsettled the status quo.
Case Background and Ruling
The case — V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States — was initiated by a coalition of small businesses and 13 U.S. states. The lead plaintiff, V.O.S. Selections, is a New York-based wine and spirits importer that argued the sweeping tariffs imposed under Trump’s “Liberation Day” initiative severely disrupted its operations. Represented by the Liberty Justice Center and supported by legal scholars such as George Mason’s Ilya Somin, the plaintiffs claimed that the IEEPA does not allow the President to impose broad peacetime tariffs without direct Congressional authorization.
The court agreed. In its ruling, the CIT determined that President Trump had exceeded his statutory authority, particularly since the tariffs did not arise from an “unusual and extraordinary” foreign threat — the required condition under IEEPA. In essence, the court declared that Trump’s invocation of emergency powers to combat trade imbalances lacked the legal foundation to sustain a global tariff regime.
The Court’s Structure — A Venue of Choice
The U.S. Court of International Trade is a specialized Article III court located in New York, with jurisdiction exclusively over trade and customs issues. It is often a go-to venue for challenging executive trade actions, particularly those involving tariff classifications or claims of statutory overreach.
Yet it is also well-known within legal circles for being susceptible to venue shopping — plaintiffs with strategic aims seek it out precisely because of its narrow focus and history of checking executive trade policy. This was no accidental forum; it was selected because the plaintiffs believed they could gain a ruling strong enough to tie the President’s hands on future trade actions.
Who Are the Plaintiffs — and Who’s Behind Them?
Though presented as a case of American small businesses standing up to federal overreach, the makeup of the lawsuit deserves scrutiny:
V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the lead plaintiff, is not a mass importer of raw materials or consumer staples — it's a niche alcohol importer, more concerned about European bottlenecks than Midwest job creation.
Four additional unnamed small businesses reportedly joined the case, all in industries vulnerable to foreign import disruptions.
13 U.S. states, led by Oregon and Arizona, joined or supported similar lawsuits — Democratic strongholds and swing states looking to score symbolic wins against Trump’s trade nationalism.
Legal support came from:
Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law firm often backing deregulatory causes.
Ilya Somin, a known anti-executive power scholar.
Amicus briefs were filed by transnational-leaning scholars focused on constraining populist executive authority.
This is lawfare by proxy: a sophisticated, ideologically driven effort to use constitutional litigation to reverse nationalist trade policy by judicial decree.
Why Now? The Question of Timing
This is the most glaring question: Why bring the case now, when the damage from the original tariffs has largely been offset by newly negotiated trade deals?
20 countries already have full Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the U.S., including Canada, Mexico, Australia, South Korea, Israel, and much of Latin America.
The United Kingdom recently negotiated a bilateral agreement that includes favorable auto import levels and broader market access for U.S. goods.
A China-U.S. framework deal is underway, reducing U.S. tariffs to 30% on key Chinese goods and stabilizing trade relations.
So who is left out? The European Union, which has failed to secure a new deal under Trump’s second term, and whose industrial base (especially in France and Germany) has been badly hurt by American trade barriers.
The suit, then, seems less a relief effort and more a rescue operation for the EU — using the American court system to achieve what Brussels could not through negotiation. With multinationals and EU exporters boxed out of Liberation Day settlements, this ruling offers a way back in through legal fiat.
A Preemptive Strike on 2026 and Beyond
This ruling doesn’t just unwind one tariff policy — it seeks to cripple the Trump administration’s ability to use tariffs altogether.
Looking ahead to 2026 and the legislative agenda Trump has promised — which includes reciprocal tariffs, domestic reindustrialization, and expanded executive flexibility — this lawsuit may be the opening salvo in a broader effort to judicially neuter the tools of economic nationalism.
It’s a preemptive containment strategy, aimed at restoring the multilateral order and undermining populist leveragejust as Trump gains momentum.
Conclusion: Whose Trade Policy Is It Anyway?
The ruling from the Court of International Trade is a stark reminder that the battlefield of economic policy is no longer confined to Congress or the White House. It now includes the courts — and increasingly, those courts are being used as weapons to reverse democratic mandates under the guise of constitutional restraint.
Far from being a defense of small business, this case may well be remembered as a foreign-influenced end-run around Trump’s trade doctrine. The Liberation Day tariffs, love them or hate them, forced nations to the negotiating table. This ruling seeks to drag America back to the old table — the one where the EU, WTO, and Wall Street always get the final say.
Comments