A U.S. court has blocked the Donald Trump administration's plan to impose reciprocal tariffs, leaving the implementation of reciprocal tariffs initially scheduled for Jul. 9 uncertain. Within the government, while the judiciary's decision is considered 'fortunate,' they adopted a cautious stance, noting that the uncertainty is significant and that the situation should be monitored until the final decision.
On the 28th (local time), the U.S. Court of International Trade made a decision to block the implementation of the 'reciprocal tariff' announced by President Trump on Apr. 2.
President Trump claimed that the U.S. trade deficit constitutes a national emergency and asserted authority to impose tariffs based on the 'International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)' enacted in 1977, but the court's judgment differed.
The U.S. Constitution grants taxation authority to Congress and not the president, and this cannot be overturned even by the president's emergency powers intended to protect the U.S. economy, according to the judgment of the Court of International Trade.
The lawsuit was filed by five U.S.-based corporations. These corporations filed the lawsuit last month, claiming that President Trump unlawfully carried out tariff policies without passing through the federal Congress, which holds the authority to make tariff decisions. The plaintiff corporations argued in their complaint that President Trump imposed tariffs without authority by arbitrarily interpreting the IEEPA.
The court sided with the plaintiffs, and President Trump's team immediately announced an intention to appeal. The White House strongly criticized the ruling, describing it as 'a runaway judicial coup.'
Regarding the series of events, a government trade official said, 'This ruling is only a first-instance decision,' and noted that 'since the White House has announced plans to appeal, we need to watch how the future trial unfolds.'
The official also stated, 'This ruling does not affect tariffs imposed on items such as automobiles and steel under the Trade Expansion Act,' and added, 'Trade consultations with the U.S. will continue.'
The trade industry also showed a cautious response. The Korea International Trade Association's International Trade and Commerce Research Institute stated in a reference document issued that day, 'There is a significant possibility that the first-instance ruling could be overturned in appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court final ruling,' and assessed that 'an overreaction suggesting this ruling will be a major turning point is inappropriate.'
Regarding the effectiveness of this ruling, the institute noted, 'There are some differing opinions,' stating that 'there is an interpretation that the tariff effectiveness will terminate immediately and another interpretation that the existing tariffs will be maintained temporarily due to applications for appeals and suspensions of execution.'
The institute further mentioned that 'the U.S. is expected to continue negotiations with reciprocal tariff countries, including technical consultations underway between Korea and the U.S.,' and stated, 'It is not appropriate to use the first-instance decision as a basis to suspend negotiations with the U.S.' The institute added, 'There is a need to reflect the variables from the U.S. judicial process in negotiation strategies and to proceed cautiously with ongoing negotiations.'