A Trump judge, a Reagan judge and an Obama judge walk into a U.S. courtroom — and leave unanimously striking down President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs as illegal and unconstitutional.

That’s not the setup to a joke. It’s what happened on Wednesday, when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade did their job. Unlike judicial activists sticking their noses where they don’t belong, this decision is an example of the courts properly interpreting the law.

The ruling targets Trump’s two flagship import taxes: the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs—which the court labeled “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs”—and the fentanyl-focused tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, dubbed “Trafficking Tariffs.”

The case against the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs was brought by the Liberty Justice Center and libertarian legal scholar Ilya Somin of George Mason University’s Scalia Law School, on behalf of five small businesses. The challenge to the Trafficking Tariffs came from a coalition of U.S. states — with Colorado among five leading plaintiffs. The cases were combined.

Put simply: Even if Trump’s tariff strategy may be “sound,” the court determined the legal basis isn’t. Presidents can’t just declare “national emergency” to arbitrarily slap tariffs of any size on any country. That’s not how the law — or separation of powers — works.

The administration claimed legal cover from the International Emergency Economic Power Act of 1977. But that law sets clear limits on the president’s emergency tariff authority. As Professor Somin observed, “(T)he virtually limitless nature of the authority claimed by Trump is a key reason why courts must strike down the tariffs.” And they did.

Congress never granted the president unlimited tariff power. As James Madison, father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 48: “(T)he powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments.” Even if Congress abdicated unlimited authority to the president, that itself would breach the separation of powers, the court said.

Constitutionally, it’s pretty darn clear tariffs are Congress’s domain. Lawmakers can’t just hand over legislative keys to the president. As the court put it, the law does not — and cannot — delegate “unbounded tariff authority,” and instead imposes “meaningful limits.”

To justify the Trafficking Tariffs, the administration had to show they expressly “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat” tied to a declared national emergency — and not “for any other purpose.” But, as Colorado and the other states argued, the tariffs fail that test because they don’t directly address the threats Trump cited.

The court agreed, determining that “deal with,” as used in the law, implies a direct link between action and threat. A tax “deals with” budget deficits by raising revenue. Here, there’s “no such association between the act of imposing a tariff and the ‘unusual and extraordinary threat[s]’” described in Trump’s orders. Collecting duties on lawful imports doesn’t directly confront alleged inaction by foreign governments on fentanyl.

The broader Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs, though, targeted an “imbalance of trade” — the same issue Richard Nixon once sought to address. Ironically, Nixon’s tariffs motivated Congress to pass limitations in the first place. Trade deficits fall under “narrower, non-emergency authorities.” A president can’t just cry “national emergency” like it’s “a talisman enabling the President to rewrite the tariff schedules.”

Honestly, claiming unlimited power over tariffs is like insisting trade with Australia is a national emergency — while keeping a straight face.

Here’s the thing: Trump may treat trade deficits like the economic scoreboard of a zero-sum game, but they’re not proof we’re “losing” anyway — and certainly don’t signal an emergency, even if he could declare one.

Economists have long pointed out that trade deficits simply mean Americans bought more from abroad than foreigners bought from us. They’re only part of the story — balanced by foreign capital flowing into the U.S. as investment in American companies.

The costs of Trump’s trade war are real. Colorado imported $17 billion in goods last year — nearly half from Canada, China, and Mexico. Trade Partnership Worldwide estimates Trump’s tariffs could cost the state $1.4 billion annually — quadrupling 2024 costs and hammering industries like restaurants and craft brewers. The court determined one of the reasons Colorado was accepted as a plaintiff is because the state government itself is directly affected as well.

Other countries’ retaliatory tariffs hit hard, too. Nearly 6,000 Colorado companies exported a record $10.5 billion in goods in 2024, mostly to our neighbors. In March, the Colorado Corn Council warned China’s retaliatory corn tariffs were driving price hikes and threatening decades of progress opening Chinese markets to American producers.

In that kind of uncertainty, businesses can’t plan or invest for the long-term. Therein lies the danger of letting presidents set and reset global tariffs on a whim — especially when the goalposts keep moving. (Is it about manufacturing? Fentanyl? Trade deficits? Federal revenue? Who knows?) It’s both unconstitutional and economically damaging.

Bottom line: This is a win for the Constitution, for the separation of powers, and for limited government. If President Trump wants authority to leverage tariffs in negotiations, he shouldn’t appeal this decision — he should make his case to Congress. After all, in a republic, no one person should ever get to wield that much power over the American — let alone global — economy.

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.