Updates with changes throughout

A federal appeals court has temporarily suspended a trade court ruling issued late Wednesday that would have blocked emergency tariffs that President Donald Trump has placed on nearly all imports into the US.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a four-page order issued today, agreed to place an immediate administrative stay on the ruling until it can consider requests by the Trump administration to suspend the tariff ruling during an appeal.

The decision to suspend the tariff ruling — which would permanently enjoin tariffs now set at 10pc for much of the world and 30pc for China — comes as the White House was considering asking the US Supreme Court to intervene if the sweeping tariff ruling was not quickly placed on hold.

The latest court order will mean that Trump's emergency tariffs on most of the world will remain in place, at least temporarily.

The US Court of International Trade, in the initial ruling on Wednesday, found that Trump's tariffs were unlawful and ordered the administration to rescind them within 10 calendar days. If that ruling is eventually upheld, any of the tariffs collected over the last four months would be refunded. The appeals court has ordered the plaintiffs in the case to file a response to the administration's stay request by 5 June, with the Trump administration filing a reply by 9 June.

Trump began imposing the tariffs at issue in the case under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) weeks into his second term, starting with a 25pc tariff from Canada and Mexico and a 10pc incremental tariff on China that he said were based on the threat of drug trafficking. Trump vastly expanded his use of tariffs on "Liberation Day" on 2 April on nearly every country, based on an alleged "emergency" of trade imbalances, raising tariffs to as high as 145pc on China before lowering them to 30pc.

But a three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade on Wednesday said all of those tariffs were unlawful because the IEEPA does not offer "unbounded" authority to put unlimited tariffs on nearly all imported goods. In a separate ruling issued today, the US District Court for the District of Columbia separately ruled that IEEPA did not support the tariffs, but that decision will only apply to two small toy companies that filed the lawsuit.

Neither ruling would affect separate "section 232" tariffs that Trump has imposed on steel, aluminum and automobiles, and that are being planned for pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and critical minerals. Trump can also impose non-emergency "section 122" tariffs that would allow tariffs of up to 15pc, but those could only be used for 150 days.

Earlier today, the White House said the judges on the trade court, two of whom are Republican appointees, "brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp" Trump's authority. The administration expects appealing the case "all the way to the Supreme Court" but believes other countries will continue to negotiate on trade agreements with the US.

The Trump administration has warned the court's invalidation of emergency tariffs under IEEPA poses an immediate and "grave" harm to the US because those alternative tariff authorities do not allow the president to take "swift and flexible" actions that are needed to address national emergencies. At a minimum, the administration has said the tariff suspension should only apply to the handful of manufacturers and states that filed the lawsuit.

To support its stay request, the administration included a declaration by US secretary of state Marco Rubio saying the injunction would cause "irreparable harm" to foreign policy and national security, while US trade representative Jamieson Greer warned of a "foreign policy disaster scenario". US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick wrote it would "would destroy" a carefully negotiated agreement with China.

US treasury secretary Scott Bessent said the ruling "will threaten to shatter our negotiations with dozens of countries" and create a risk that trading partners "feel a renewed boldness to take advantage of" a new ability to retaliate against the US.

By Chris Knight