The chaos surrounding US President Trump’s sweeping tariffs — which impose anywher from 10% to 50% on a range of F&B products and other goods imported from around the world — is heating up as judges ruled the tariffs can stay in place, for now, following a previous decision the day before that said they are illegal.

In a whirlwind of events over the last few days and what is now the hallmark of Trump’s chaotic and vacillating tariffs, there has been more back and forth over whether most of the president’s tariffs are lawful.

Overstepping power and appeals 

Last week, the US Court of International Trade ruled Trump’s tariffs illegal, with judges saying the president had exceeded his authority in trade negotiations. 

However, the judicial setback didn’t last long, and the Trump administration immediately countered with an appeal against this decision amid more market turbulence on the stock exchange. 

A federal appeals court granted a bid from the White House to temporarily suspend the US Court of International Trade’s order with a similar claim that their initial decision to say Trump’s tariffs are illegal was a judicial overreach.

The administration claimed that the initial order put months of trade negotiations between President Trump and various countries worldwide at risk, while judges at the lower court based in New York claimed that Trump’s sweeping tariffs did not have input from Congress. 

The appeals’ court decision means the tariffs can stay in place while the case is litigated. The next hearing is on June 5.

Last week, President Trump made a U-turn by delaying 50% tariffs on the EU until July 9, 2025, in order to reach “a good deal.” The EU is one of America’s largest trading partners, and the two regions have been locked into trade talks for weeks. Trump claims the US and EU relationship has historically been unfair and has pointed to concerns over many different agricultural goods and F&B products.

Trump is fully expected to push his tariff agenda by challenging the court rulings, and the case is predicted to eventually be heard at the Supreme Court.