Justice Department and White House officials are on the defensive after a stunning court decision temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s latest wave of tariffs. Trump’s trade team, including Peter Navarro and Stephen Miller, are waging a public campaign against what they see as judicial overreach, even as the administration prepares a Supreme Court appeal. Critics say the move could upend months of hard-won trade negotiations and embolden foreign rivals.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Department of Justice (DOJ) signaled Thursday it could ask the Supreme Court to revive the tariffs as soon as Friday after the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a permanent injunction against the policy. The administration has warned of “irreparable national security and economic harms” if the injunction is not quickly lifted by the appeals court.
Wednesday’s ruling left Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade agenda in limbo, with a 10-day stay allowing time for a possible appeal. The blocked tariffs targeted several nations, including China, Mexico, and Canada, and were seen as a centerpiece of the administration’s push to confront what it describes as unfair foreign trade practices.
The DOJ’s emergency filing condemned the injunction as “unprecedented and legally indefensible,” warning it could unravel recent diplomatic progress. DOJ attorney Sosun Bae argued that the decision risks emboldening foreign governments to retaliate against American exporters. The administration is adamant that courts should not dictate trade and foreign policy.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller took an even stronger stance, blasting the court’s action as “judicial tyranny” in a social media post. Miller, a close Trump ally, accused unelected judges of undermining the administration’s economic agenda, a view echoed by other senior officials. In a televised interview Thursday, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro accused the judges of harboring a “globalist” bias and favoring foreign importers over American interests.
Peter Navarro told Bloomberg TV: “The court’s decision reeks of globalist bias. They favor importers over American workers.” Trump’s allies in the media and business world also voiced outrage, arguing that the judiciary is overstepping its authority by intervening in core matters of national policy. Jason Miller, another Trump adviser, told Fox Business that unelected judges are interfering with the administration’s power to set tax and trade policies.
The injunction was issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, composed of Jane Restani (appointed by Ronald Reagan), Timothy Reif (Barack Obama), and Gary Katzmann (Donald Trump). Their decision found that Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the tariffs exceeded his authority as president and violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.
On page 35 of their decision, the judges clarified that the administration could have lawfully imposed similar tariffs by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. However, that law would have limited the tariffs to 150 days—far shorter than what the administration intended. Navarro admitted this strategy was designed for a more lasting economic impact.
The court’s stay gives the Trump administration until next week to appeal. If the appeals court does not act swiftly, DOJ lawyers have pledged to seek “emergency relief” from the Supreme Court. The stakes are high, with the administration arguing that the ruling could jeopardize key breakthroughs with China and the United Kingdom.
Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, enacted in early April, aimed to penalize countries maintaining what the White House calls “lopsided” tariff systems or those that allegedly fuel the U.S. drug crisis through weak enforcement. Supporters argue the tariffs are essential for rebalancing global trade and protecting American jobs, while critics say they risk triggering a damaging trade war.
Markets responded calmly to the court’s decision, signaling that investors remain cautious but are not panicking. However, business leaders warn that ongoing legal uncertainty could disrupt supply chains and undermine confidence in future trade deals. The administration insists that the tariffs are part of a broader effort to restore fairness and strength to America’s economic posture.
DOJ officials maintain that the court’s injunction “unilaterally disarms the United States.” They stress that only the political branches—Congress and the president—have the constitutional authority to determine foreign and economic policy, not the courts.
Trump’s legal and policy teams are now focused on securing a stay of the injunction or, failing that, winning emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The DOJ has already filed a notice of appeal and is prepared to escalate the case as soon as Friday if necessary.
If the Supreme Court takes up the case, it could set a major precedent on presidential power in trade policy. The administration’s aggressive response signals just how central these tariffs are to Trump’s economic vision. Supporters insist that the court’s interference threatens not only immediate trade deals but also the broader principle of executive authority over foreign affairs.
Trump officials remain firm in their conviction that the judiciary must not overrule elected leaders on core economic and security policies. For now, all eyes are on the appeals court and, potentially, the Supreme Court for the next chapter in this high-stakes legal battle.
