Judicial Jackpot: Trump’s Tariff Case Lands in the Hands of Judges He Picked — Is the Outcome Already Written

In a twist of judicial fate, former President Donald Trump’s appeal against a federal court ruling that blocked his sweeping tariffs will be heard by a three-judge panel, all of whom were appointed by him during his presidency. This development has raised eyebrows and sparked discussions about judicial impartiality and the influence of presidential appointments on the judiciary.

Background of the Tariff Dispute

The controversy stems from Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, which imposed broad levies on imports from countries including Canada, Mexico, and China. These tariffs were justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, with the administration citing national security concerns, particularly the fight against fentanyl trafficking.

However, in May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority under the IEEPA, stating that the act does not grant the executive branch unlimited power to impose such tariffs. The court’s decision emphasized that declaring a chronic trade deficit as a national emergency stretched the legal bounds of the IEEPA.

The Appeal and the Judges Involved

Following the ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal, which is now set to be reviewed by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Notably, all three judges on this panel were appointed by Trump during his tenure. This composition has led to discussions about the potential for bias, although federal judges are expected to rule based on the law and not personal affiliations.

Implications and Reactions

The case has significant implications for the scope of presidential power in trade matters. If the appellate court upholds the lower court’s decision, it could set a precedent limiting the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs under the guise of national emergencies.

The White House has criticized the initial ruling, labeling it as “judicial overreach” and urging the Supreme Court to intervene. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the decision threatens to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage and could cost the country trillions of dollars.

Conclusion

As the appeal progresses, all eyes will be on the three-judge panel to see whether they uphold the lower court’s decision or side with the administration. The outcome will not only impact current trade policies but could also redefine the boundaries of executive power in economic matters.