A second federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump’s broad use of emergency tariffs, deepening a legal and political challenge to one of his administration’s central trade policies.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction stopping the federal government from collecting tariffs from two companies that produce educational toys—Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc. Both businesses manufacture most of their products in Asia and argued that the tariffs were harming their operations.
Judge Contreras stated that President Trump lacked the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, commonly referred to as IEEPA, to impose the tariffs as outlined in four executive orders signed earlier this year. According to the ruling, the law does not give the President the power to create the kind of sweeping tariff measures that have been central to his second-term trade strategy.
Contreras wrote, “The International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs set forth,” noting that in the nearly 50 years since the law was enacted, no previous President had used it for tariffs in this manner.
This ruling aligns with another decision made just one day earlier by the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. In that case, a three-judge panel also found the President’s use of IEEPA for implementing widespread “reciprocal tariffs” to be beyond the limits of the law. The panel clarified that their judgment wasn’t based on whether the policy was effective or not, but strictly on whether the law allows such action.
The Trump administration quickly responded to the legal setbacks. The Justice Department filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to pause the earlier ruling. The motion warned that the decision could disrupt the administration’s trade goals and have broader economic consequences.
The department said, “Absent at least interim relief from this Court, the United States plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court tomorrow to avoid the irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake.”
President Trump has leaned heavily on the IEEPA to justify a series of tariffs in his second term. These include tariffs aimed at fentanyl-related trade from China, Mexico, and Canada, as well as a recent set of broad tariffs targeting nearly all of America’s major trading partners. With two courts now raising legal objections, the administration faces a difficult road in keeping the full policy in place.
Although Judge Contreras limited his ruling to the two companies that filed the lawsuit and did not issue a nationwide injunction, he acknowledged that the case might influence other businesses. Government attorneys argued during the proceedings that an injunction could attract additional lawsuits from affected companies.
To give time for the appeals process, Judge Contreras delayed enforcement of his ruling by 14 days. Legal experts expect the appeals to move forward in two different courts: the D.C. Circuit and the Federal Circuit, both located in Washington, D.C. Depending on the outcomes, the Supreme Court may eventually take up the case in the coming weeks.
President Trump inherited a national emergency and he has the authority to impose these tariffs, especially for our national security.
Unelected federal judges should NOT be the deciding party for when they are lifted. pic.twitter.com/8UypJGCIfW
— RSC (@RepublicanStudy) May 29, 2025
At a press briefing Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized the court decisions, stating, “Three judges disagreed and abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him.”
🚨 VANCE on the judges who tried to stop Trump’s tariffs: “We believe, and we’re right, that we ARE in an emergency.” pic.twitter.com/1mwJFgcykt
“You have seen foreign governments… threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies […] That is, by DEFINITION, a…
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 30, 2025
She added that the rulings failed to consider the President’s constitutional and congressional authority to protect national economic interests. The legal and political battle over emergency tariffs now moves into a new phase, with further decisions expected soon.
