• Trump appeals to the Supreme Court aiming to uphold his tariffs declared illegal by a federal appeals court.
• The administration argues that tariffs are critical for national security and economic stability.
• The Supreme Court’s decision may shape future executive powers regarding trade.
• The appeal follows a 7-4 ruling against Trump, asserting tariffs exceed his authority.
• Trade negotiations with global partners are reportedly jeopardized by the court's ruling.

President Trump has lodged an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a recent federal appeals court ruling that found many of his tariffs illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The administration argues that these tariffs are essential for national security and protecting economic interests, as stated in a petition filed late Wednesday, according to Los Angeles Times and Le Monde.

Trump's appeal comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 that he exceeded his authority in imposing these tariffs, asserting that setting levies is a power granted solely to Congress. The ruling has significant implications, as it could disrupt ongoing trade negotiations and pose economic risks, including a potential requirement to refund collected tariffs, according to CBS News and BBC.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, warned that failing to act swiftly could lead to "catastrophic consequences," highlighting the critical role of tariffs in ongoing diplomatic negotiations with trading partners such as Japan and the European Union. The appeal underscores the stakes involved, as Trump claims the tariffs are crucial for preventing trade retaliations that could severely impact the U.S. economy, as noted in HuffPost and NPR.

The appeals court ruling granted the administration until October 14 to appeal, but the Trump administration is pressing for an expedited review, noting that Congress has traditionally held the taxing power, and that the IEEPA does not explicitly permit the president to impose tariffs. This has raised legal questions about the extent of presidential authority, as expressed in court opinions analyzed by Reuters and Reuters.

Trump, emphasizing the economic implications of the court's decision, has argued that without tariffs, the U.S. could regress economically, citing dire consequences such as becoming "a third-world country." This framing aligns with his administration's view that robust tariffs are a necessary tool for negotiating favorable trade terms internationally, further elaborated in the administration’s filings reported by South China Morning Post and Newsweek.