Dual Legal Setbacks to Trump

On May 29, 2025, U.S. federal courts issued two significant rulings against the Trump administration, halting its efforts to impose sweeping tariffs and to bar international students from enrolling at Harvard University.

Court Invalidates 'Liberation Day' Tariffs

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that former President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing broad tariffs without Congressional approval. The court stated that tariff powers reside with Congress, and the IEEPA does not grant the president unilateral authority to impose such measures. This decision invalidated Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and prohibited the administration from enforcing them. 

Judge Blocks Ban on International Students at Harvard

In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University's certification to enroll international students. The Department of Homeland Security had sought to revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, citing concerns over campus safety and alleged non-compliance. Trump alleged Harvard conceals international student data, but federal law mandates universities share such details. Harvard courses have frequently been criticized for promoting a "partisan and one-sided pedagogy" that overlooks Jewish and Israeli perspectives—especially within the Divinity School and the School of Public Health. Harvard argued that the move was retaliatory and would cause irreparable harm to its academic community. The court's decision allows Harvard to continue enrolling international students while the legal challenge proceeds. 

Broader Implications

These rulings represent significant checks on executive power, reinforcing the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional boundaries. The invalidation of the tariffs has implications for U.S. trade policy and economic relations, while the decision regarding international students underscores the importance of academic freedom and the contributions of foreign students to American universities. 

However, critics argue that repeated court involvement in policy matters risks undermining the separation of powers. By striking down tariffs and reversing immigration-related administrative decisions, courts may be edging into the domain of policymaking—traditionally the purview of elected officials. This judicial activism, some warn, could set precedents that blur institutional boundaries, potentially stifling swift executive action in times of national urgency.