U.S. federal appeals court reinstates Trump’s tariffs — for now
OTTAWA — Canada was only able to breathe a sigh of relief on tariffs for a few hours, as a U.S. federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated some tariffs on Canadian goods.
On Thursday afternoon, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a request for an “immediate administrative stay” of a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade stating that President Donald Trump could not use emergency powers to impose tariffs.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters earlier in the day that the U.S. administration had already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal to “strike down this egregious decision” and was considering other legal avenues to impose tariffs.
The federal court decision means that Trump’s sweeping 10 per cent global tariffs and “reciprocal tariffs” on dozens of trading partners, as well as 25 per cent fentanyl-related duties on Canadian and Mexican goods are now back into force for the time being.
Plaintiffs have until June 5 to respond to the U.S. administration’s motion for a stay, while the government “may file a single, consolidated reply in support” no later than June 9.
Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne had not immediately seen the news, as he was leaving question period Thursday afternoon.
“Listen, we’re going to continue to fight. Canadians know that. We have their back and we’ll continue to fight,” he told reporters.
Interim NDP Leader Don Davies called this turn of events “disappointing.”
“Canada has to develop a strong united position that’s based on a rules-based international system and I think this back-and-forth, very chaotic approach to trade policies that’s coming from south of the border doesn’t help,” he said.
Earlier in the day, politicians in Canada were breathing a cautious sigh of relief in reaction to the decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade — calling it good news.
In a speech in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he welcomed the decision “which is consistent with Canada’s longstanding position” that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs were “unlawful as well as unjustified.”
He said that Canada’s relationship with the U.S. was still affected by section 232 tariffs against steel, aluminum and the auto sector, as well as continuing threats of tariffs against other strategic sectors including lumber, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
While the court decision on Wednesday marked the first major legal pushback to Trump’s broad use of tariffs to upend global trade, Carney hinted that Canada does not intend to rest on its laurels and must diversify its trading relations with other allies.
“It therefore remains the top priority of Canada’s new government to establish a new economic and security relationship with the United States and to strengthen our collaboration with reliable trading partners and allies around the world,” he said.
In a statement on X, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre urged similar caution in response to the legal proceedings.
“We need true free trade — so workers earn more, prices fall, and businesses boom on both sides of the border,” he wrote.
“But we can no longer put all our eggs in the U.S. basket. Too risky. Canada must fire up free enterprise to build pipelines, powerlines, ports, rail, roads, and tech — so we are strong, self-reliant and sovereign for a change.”
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said he was hopeful that the court decision would help Canadian negotiators ahead of the CUSMA renegotiation in 2026.
“It does give future Canadian negotiators a better position. It reminds us that when you have to negotiate something with a friend, with your closest friend and ally, you should not start by creating false reasons to impose tariffs and intimidate your partner,” he said.
Blanchet wondered if the judicial setback might call for “more reasonable, quiet and serene negotiations.”
Candace Laing, President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said she will leave this decision to work its way through the U.S. courts system.
“Ultimately, the end of this trade war with the U.S. will not come through the courts. It will come when we have negotiated a durable, new agreement on trade that is trusted and respected by all involved,” Laing said.
Trump hit Canada with economy-wide tariffs in March after he declared an emergency at the northern border related to the flow of fentanyl. He took his trade war to the rest of the world in April with “reciprocal tariffs” on nearly every nation.
While he walked back the most devastating duties a few hours later, he left a 10 per cent universal tariff in place for most countries.
The decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president’s emergency powers to safeguard the U.S. economy.
“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel said in its decision. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”
The judges also ordered the Trump administration to issue new orders reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days. The Trump administration minutes later filed a notice of appeal and questioned the authority of the court.
A White House spokesperson argued that U.S. trade deficits “have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said spokesperson Kush Desai in a statement.
Leavitt went even further during a press briefing on Thursday, saying “the courts should have no role here” and slamming a “troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process.”
“America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,” she said.
One of the judges was appointed by Trump during his first administration.
“Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this, for the sake of our constitution and our country,” said Leavitt.
National Post, with additional reporting by the Canadian Press and Reuters
calevesque@postmedia.com
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.