A U.S. federal court on Wednesday halted several of President Trump's sweeping tariff executive orders, ruling that the president exceeded his statutory authority in using emergency powers to impose tariffs.

The U.S. Court of International Trade issued an injunction against four executive orders that invoked multiple national emergencies to impose tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, as well as a 10% global tariff and additional reciprocal tariffs. The injunction requires the government to stop all actions related to those tariff orders and to issue an administrative notice regarding a permanent injunction within 10 days.

Lawyers representing the Trump administration quickly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and have 14 days to supplement filings supporting their position. According to a Federal Circuit order on Thursday, the ruling has been stayed until further notice.

The injunction stems from multiple lawsuits, with several small businesses and multiple U.S. states filing similar requests to halt the tariffs, arguing that the government exceeded presidential authority in imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, finding that blocking the relevant executive orders was appropriate.

"The global tariff order and the retaliatory tariff order exceed any authority IEEPA grants the President to regulate imports by imposing tariffs," the court's panel opinion stated. "The fentanyl tariff order fails because it does not target the threats identified in those orders."

Beyond broad tariffs on trading partners, Trump also relied on IEEPA to eliminate the "de minimis" duty-free exemption for imports from China and Hong Kong. The White House planned to terminate such exemptions for other countries under the act once relevant systems were in place. With the court halting the related executive orders, these changes now also face uncertainty.

However, tariffs on automobiles, auto parts, steel, and aluminum products are not affected by the injunction because they were imposed under a separate trade authority—Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Likewise, any tariffs imposed under Section 301 remain in effect.

According to an April report from the Congressional Research Service, Trump is not the first president to use emergency powers to impose tariffs, though the authority has always been questioned. In 1971, President Richard Nixon imposed a 10% tariff globally in response to an emergency related to the nation's economic conditions.

However, Trump's use of emergency powers differs in several respects. First, he invoked emergencies more broadly, separately designating immigration, fentanyl trafficking, and imbalanced trade relations as independent emergencies justifying new tariffs. Second, the report noted that the law Nixon used was later reformed into IEEPA—the law Trump relied on—so IEEPA's use for tariffs had never before been legally tested.

"IEEPA authorizes the President to 'regulate' various international economic transactions, including imports. Whether 'regulate' includes the power to impose tariffs, and the size and scope of tariffs the law might authorize, are open questions because no previous president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs," Christopher A. Casey, an international trade and finance analyst at the Congressional Research Service, wrote in the report.

According to the court's website, the U.S. Court of International Trade is established under the Constitution and has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions involving U.S. tariffs and trade laws. The Federal Circuit can review its decisions.

However, multiple Trump administration officials issued statements criticizing the court's action to halt the tariffs. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said on X: "The judicial coup is out of control."

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement posted on X: "How to handle national emergencies should not be decided by unelected judges."

Max Garland contributed to this article.

Editor's note: This article has been updated with the Federal Circuit's order staying the injunction.