An appeals court may soon get in the way of President Trump’s trade agenda as his Aug. 1 deadline approaches to impose so-called 'reciprocal’ duties on a host of countries.

One day ahead of that deadline, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will convene across the street from the White House to decide whether the bulk of Trump’s tariffs are legal.

Hanging in the balance at Thursday’s oral argument is whether Trump can use an emergency law to justify his sweeping reciprocal tariffs on countries globally and a series of specific levies on Canada, China and Mexico.

The Constitution vests Congress with the power to impose tariffs, so Trump can’t act unless lawmakers delegated him authority.

Trump points to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency to combat an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” Trump is the first president to attempt to leverage IEEPA to impose tariffs.

Citing an emergency over fentanyl, Trump invoked the law as early as February to target Canada, China and Mexico, its top trade partners.

By April, Trump moved more aggressively. This time citing an emergency over trade deficits, Trump declared “Liberation Day” and announced a 10 percent global baseline tariff with steeper levies for dozens of trading partners.

Trump delayed the latter portion, but he has threatened to institute heavy rates for countries that don’t negotiate a deal by Aug. 1.

In the lead-up to Friday’s deadline, Trump has announced a series of agreements.

On Sunday, he reached a deal with the European Union that will set tariffs at 15 percent. The president reached a similar deal with Japan last week and another one with the Philippines.

In court, the administration has pointed to its dealmaking, warning that any judicial intervention undermines the president’s ability to negotiate. The Justice Department also asserts there is no basis for the courts to review Trump’s emergency declarations.

“It is not difficult to imagine that Congress meant for the President to use his IEEPA powers as a tool to create leverage, just as Congress and the President have long done in other international-trade contexts,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.

The case arrived at the Federal Circuit after the U.S. Court of International Trade in late May invalidated the challenged tariffs by ruling that IEEPA does not “confer such unbounded authority.”

The 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses suing go further, contending that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs in any circumstance. They say the law instead concerns measures like sanctions and embargoes.

“No statute contains the sweeping delegation of authority the government claims,” the businesses wrote in court filings. “Nor could a statute grant such unbounded tariff authority without violating the separation-of-powers principles on which our Constitution is based.”

The Federal Circuit put the lower ruling on hold until the appeal is resolved. The court has agreed to expedite the case, meaning a decision could come soon after the arguments.

One other potential wrinkle to watch Thursday: The Trump administration argues the Supreme Court’s recent decision clawing back universal injunctions means the tariffs shouldn’t be blocked nationwide, even if they are declared illegal.

If you want to listen in, audio of Thursday’s argument will be livestreamed here.

The appeals court will hear from three attorneys.

Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil division, will represent the administration.

Neal Katyal, who served as solicitor general in the Obama administration and one of the most well-known Supreme Court advocates, will argue on behalf of the businesses.

And Benjamin Gutman, Oregon’s solicitor general, will represent the states.

The trio will appear before 11 of the Federal Circuit’s 12 active judges.

Judge Pauline Newman, 98, the nation’s oldest active federal judge, will not participate.

Her fellow judges in 2023 suspended her from hearing new cases over concerns about her mental fitness. Newman is suing her colleagues, and the judges on Monday asked to extend her suspension another year over a refusal to undergo full neuropsychological testing.

Thursday’s argument is arguably the most........

© The Hill