Fact Check: Two courts ruled Trump's tariffs unlawful on different grounds.

Fact Check: "Two courts ruled Trump's tariffs unlawful on different grounds."

What We Know

The claim that "two courts ruled Trump's tariffs unlawful on different grounds" is based on recent rulings by the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal court in Washington. The U.S. Court of International Trade found that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act when imposing tariffs on goods from various countries, including China, Mexico, and Canada. This ruling was issued on May 28, 2025, and deemed the tariffs illegal due to the lack of Congressional input required for such sweeping measures (source-3, source-6).

Following this, an appeals court temporarily suspended the lower court's ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect while further litigation occurs (source-2). Additionally, a separate ruling by a federal judge in Washington also found that Trump's tariffs were unlawful, although this ruling applied specifically to a toy company and did not have the same broad implications as the trade court's decision (source-2, source-7).

Analysis

The claim is partially true as it accurately reflects the existence of two court rulings that found Trump's tariffs unlawful, albeit on different grounds. The U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling was based on the assertion that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which requires Congressional approval for such tariffs (source-3). This ruling has significant implications for the legality of the tariffs imposed on a broader scale.

On the other hand, the ruling from the federal court in Washington was narrower in scope, applying specifically to a case involving a toy company (source-2). This distinction is crucial because while both courts found the tariffs unlawful, the contexts and implications of their rulings differ. The trade court's decision could potentially affect all tariffs imposed under the emergency powers act, while the federal court's ruling was limited to a specific case.

Both sources of rulings come from credible courts, but the broader implications of the U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling make it a more significant legal challenge to Trump's tariffs. The reliability of the information is high, given that these rulings are documented and reported by reputable news organizations (source-1, source-4).

Conclusion

The verdict on the claim is "Partially True." While it is accurate that two courts have ruled Trump's tariffs unlawful, the rulings were based on different legal grounds and contexts. The U.S. Court of International Trade's decision has broader implications for the legality of the tariffs, while the federal court's ruling was more limited in scope. Thus, the claim captures a significant aspect of the legal landscape regarding Trump's tariffs but does not fully convey the nuances of the rulings.

Fact Check: Two courts ruled Trump's tariffs unlawful on different grounds.