May 29, 2025
Courts Hit Pause on Trump Tariffs. But for How Long?
Steel and aluminum tariffs stay put as President Trump eyes new legal tactics
In a landmark decision reverberating from Manhattan courtrooms to shipping docks in Shenzhen, the U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority in imposing sweeping tariffs under the guise of national emergency. The court’s ruling halts the 10% across-the-board tariffs and higher country-specific duties imposed since January — an abrupt check on one of the Trump administration’s signature economic weapons.
The decision does not touch all tariffs. Notably, duties on automobiles, steel, and aluminum remain intact. But for a commercial lighting sector that’s endured months of trade volatility — from 145% tariffs on Chinese fixtures to stop-start penalties on components from Southeast Asia — the ruling is both a relief and a new kind of uncertainty.
The Legal Line President Trump Crossed
The court’s central finding? The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — a Cold War-era law meant to freeze foreign assets and sanction adversaries — does not give a president carte blanche to rewrite tariff codes. “Not because it is unwise or ineffective,” the three-judge panel noted, “but because [federal law] does not allow it.”
In plain terms, the court ruled that the president cannot bypass Congress and act as the nation’s trade czar. Wall Street took notice: U.S. stocks rallied, the dollar strengthened, and lighting firms that depend on imported components exhaled — for now.
Still, the White House has already filed notice to appeal, setting up a constitutional showdown that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. And while the injunction blocks many of the most sweeping tariffs, it leaves open key questions about how President Trump — or any future president — might reassert trade leverage using other legal channels.
The Tools President Trump Still Has
Despite the setback, President Trump’s trade playbook is far from empty. According to CNBC, which deserves credit for breaking down these alternatives, the administration has at least four legal levers it can still pull:
- Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows tariffs up to 15% without Congressional approval — for 150 days. A temporary fix, but quick to implement.
- Section 301 investigations: These require more time but offer broader authority to retaliate against unfair trade practices, particularly with China.
- Section 232: Already used to justify tariffs on steel and aluminum based on national security concerns. This could be expanded to other sectors.
- Section 338 of the 1930 Trade Act: An obscure provision allowing tariffs of up to 50% on countries that discriminate against U.S. exports. It’s never been used, but in this administration, that may not matter.
Trade lawyers warn that these approaches aren’t turnkey. Unlike IEEPA, they require formal investigations, public input, and interagency coordination. “We have a little bit of a reprieve,” as trade attorney Michelle Schulz told CNBC, “but this isn’t over.”
What Stays and What’s in Limbo
It’s important to note what the court didn’t strike down. Sector-specific tariffs — like those targeting steel and aluminum, both vital to the lighting industry’s material supply chain — remain in force. That nuance is crucial. Many lighting firms may still face elevated costs on chassis, brackets, and housings even if LED chips or drivers temporarily escape heightened penalties.
The practical impact? Price sheets may change — again. Distributors and contractors will start asking for money back on orders recently placed. But until the appeal plays out and President Trump chooses his next move, most firms are hedging rather than celebrating. As we’ve reported in recent months, lighting manufacturers were already whipsawed by a chaotic tariff regime that changed three times in April alone. A court ruling doesn’t restore stability; it just shifts the fault line.
What Comes Next?
Appeals to higher courts, potential emergency stays, and maybe — just maybe — new tariffs under different statutes. President Trump has long touted tariffs as a tool to force trade partners to the table, claim victories, and rally political support. That strategy now faces its most significant legal test yet.
For lighting executives navigating supply chains stretched across Asia, the message is clear: the storm isn’t over. But for now, it’s paused. Whether this pause leads to clarity — or yet another pivot — depends on what comes next in court, in Congress, and the Oval Office.
