The Trump administration was handed a temporary win on tariffs Thursday, as an appeals court allowed some of the fees imposed by the White House to remain in effect while a legal battle continues.
President Donald Trump introduced a range of tariffs on imports in 2025, arguing this was a way to ensure manufacturing returned to the United States from overseas and to punish countries that were not cooperating with the U.S. on the world stage. Multiple lawsuits followed, challenging the president’s authority to impose the tariffs in the first place.
Thursday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed a block on so-called Section 122 tariffs, which were set at 10 percent, while the case is heard in full. The court also found the administration could suffer irreparable harm—including disruption to U.S. trade policy—if the tariffs remained blocked.
“We conclude that the federal government has made a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” the panel wrote, indicating skepticism toward the lower court’s reasoning.
The case was brought by a coalition of more than 20 states, led by Oregon, along with small businesses including Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun, which challenged the legality of the tariffs.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email Thursday afternoon.
What It Could Mean for Consumers
For consumers, the immediate impact of the court’s decision is indirect but potentially significant, as the reinstated tariffs are likely to flow through supply chains and affect prices.
Because the ruling allows the tariffs to remain in place during the appeal, U.S. importers, including retailers and manufacturers, may once again face higher costs on affected goods. Companies often pass at least part of those costs on to consumers, meaning prices for certain imported products could rise in the short term.
The court itself acknowledged that businesses may face operational and financial strain from paying the tariffs, including “lost profits” and “constraints on growth,” even though those harms could later be offset by refunds if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail.
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Read the full article here
