Introduction
A recent CNN article discussing a federal appeals court’s intervention in the Trump administration’s contested use of emergency powers to impose tariffs has raised questions about the formation of a legal resistance coalition. The report details legal challenges from both libertarian groups and state governments and paints a fast-moving legal battle that has implications for trade and executive authority. But just how accurate and complete is the representation of these judicial dynamics?
Historical Context
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), enacted in 1977, allows U.S. presidents to regulate commerce during national emergencies. While traditionally used to impose sanctions on foreign threats, the Trump administration has expanded its interpretation to justify broad tariffs—many aimed at protecting domestic manufacturing and combating foreign influence. This stretching of IEEPA’s intended use has become fertile ground for legal contestation, especially as courts weigh in on whether Trump’s economic measures align with the law’s scope.
Fact-Check of Claims
Claim #1: “The Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs.”
This claim is accurate. According to official records from the Court of International Trade (USCIT), the court issued a summary judgment stating that using IEEPA to justify wide-ranging tariffs, such as the “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed on April 2 and others targeting imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, exceeded the president’s delegated powers. The law is primarily intended to address hostile foreign threats, and the court found that it lacks an express provision for economic tariffs of this magnitude. Legal analysis from the Congressional Research Service echoes this interpretation, stating that IEEPA does not clearly authorize across-the-board economic tariffs without a clearly defined national emergency.
Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10305
Claim #2: “The appeals court ruling restores Trump’s ability to levy tariffs using the emergency powers he declared earlier this year.”
Partially accurate with important context needed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did indeed pause (or “stay”) the lower court’s ruling, effectively allowing the Trump administration’s tariffs under IEEPA to remain in place temporarily. However, this is a procedural development rather than a full restoration of authority. The appeals court has not ruled on the legality of Trump’s tariff authority under IEEPA—it has only granted the government’s request to maintain the status quo until full arguments are submitted and a decision is made.
Using the phrase “restores Trump’s ability” may unintentionally mislead readers into thinking the legality of his tariffs has been upheld; it has not.
Claim #3: “The two rulings […] came in under 24 hours, a whirlwind that adds to the chaos around Trump’s economic policy.”
This is factually correct. On May 28, 2025, the Court of International Trade issued its summary judgment blocking the tariffs. Less than a day later, on May 29, the appellate court stayed that decision. Court documents confirm that both legal developments occurred within 24 hours. Given that these rulings concern high-stakes national trade policy with wide economic repercussions, such rapid reversals have naturally added layers of confusion and complexity to public and policymaker understanding of the issue.
Source: https://www.caFC.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders
Claim #4: “USCIT blocked all tariffs invoked under IEEPA […] Notably, the order does not include the 25% tariffs on autos, steel, or aluminum, which were under a different law, Section 232.”
This claim is accurate and demonstrates responsible reporting. The article correctly differentiates between tariffs imposed under IEEPA and those under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The latter grants the president authority to adjust imports that threaten national security and has been used by both Trump and Biden administrations to apply duties on steel and aluminum imports. The court decision only pertained to IEEPA-based tariffs, making this caveat necessary and factually correct.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce – Section 232 Investigations
https://www.commerce.gov/232
Conclusion
The article accurately captures the legal volatility surrounding Trump’s tariff strategy, particularly the dispute over using IEEPA as the legal basis for imposing broad economic tariffs. While most factual claims reviewed are supported by court records and legal precedent, the article occasionally blurs procedural developments as substantive wins or losses, which may mislead readers not familiar with legal nuances. However, CNN does appropriately distinguish legal authorities behind different tariffs and quotes stakeholders from opposing sides fairly. Overall, the article presents the facts with moderate precision but should improve contextual guidance around judicial procedure versus final rulings.
Join the Fight Against Misinformation
Misinformation thrives when news lacks clarity and context. At DBUNK, we simplify truth-seeking. Download the DBUNK app today or follow us on social media for fact-checked news, free from spin. Help us build a more informed future.
