What To Know About The Court of International Trade's Decision to Halt Trump's Tariffs

President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again trade war has sparked anger, market volatility and confusion not only in the U.S., but also across the world. Here is what you should know after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that federal law did not grant Trump the "unbounded authority" to tax imports from nearly every country around the world.

On Thursday, the administration petitioned a court to allow it to continue levying tariffs, reflecting a persistent fear throughout the White House that a defeat could severely undercut its capacity to implement such policies.

But regardless of the administration's new move, the court's decision halted two broad categories of tariffs, The Washington Post explains.

The first one struck down was Trump's global tariffs announced on April 2, which affected nearly every country around the world. Those tariffs imposed a 10% tax on imports from nearly all countries. Initially, Trump said those tariffs would rise to much higher rates for dozens of countries. But those so-called reciprocal tariffs on more than 75 countries were later delayed and not scheduled to take effect until July.

The court also halted 25% tariffs that Trump— citing an emergency over unlawful migration and drug trafficking— imposed on many products from Canada and Mexico, and tariffs of 20% on most goods from China for its alleged role in facilitating production of the opioid fentanyl.

Conversely, in its Wednesday decision, the court did not decide on tariffs on specific products such as steel, aluminum and automobiles. This is because Trump did not use the emergency powers to implement these levies, instead relying on a 1962 trade law. Typically, the commerce secretary or another government official has to investigate whether the imports affect national security under this law, making the process longer, according to The Post.

The court's ruling gave the executive branch up to 10 days to complete the bureaucratic process of ending these tariffs. However, it is not immediately clear precisely when and how the tariff collections would grind to a halt, according to The New York Times.

The White House quickly denounced the court's decision, saying in a statement that unfair trade relationships had "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," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, adding that Trump would use "every lever of executive power to address this crisis."

Moving forward, apart from the appeal, the president has other ways to impose tariffs, so it's possible the Trump administration will consider other routes, The Post reports.

"I think people should not look at this and say, 'this is a definitive victory,'" said Joseph Steinberg, a professor in the University of Toronto's economics department. "It will be appealed."