Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court's ruling temporarily halts President Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, highlighting the tension between executive power and judicial independence [1][2][3] Group 1: Court Ruling and Legal Implications - The court's decision questions the legality of President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, stating that it requires specific reasons to address specific issues [3][5] - The ruling indicates that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to issue global tariffs or retaliatory tariffs, and granting unlimited tariff power to the president violates the Constitution [3][4] - The court's order permanently prohibits the enforcement of the related tariff executive orders, declaring them illegal for all parties involved [3][6] Group 2: Market Reactions and Economic Impact - Following the ruling, global financial markets reacted positively, with U.S. stock indices rising and the dollar strengthening, reflecting optimism about a potential easing of trade tensions [2][7] - However, experts warn that ongoing litigation regarding tariff policies could lead to significant disruptions in U.S. export trade and domestic market supply, potentially increasing inflationary pressures [7][8] - The uncertainty surrounding tariff policies may disrupt international trade systems and lead to a restructuring of global supply chains, negatively impacting world economic growth [7][9] Group 3: Future Developments and Political Dynamics - The Trump administration has filed an appeal against the ruling, indicating a potential for further legal battles and the possibility of seeking a stay on the enforcement of the ruling [6][9] - Analysts suggest that the appeal process may introduce additional complexities, with the potential for the case to reach the Supreme Court, where outcomes remain uncertain due to the conservative majority [9][10] - The ruling complicates ongoing trade negotiations, as trade partners may hesitate to make concessions until there is more clarity from the U.S. judicial system regarding tariff disputes [10]