This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Initial injunction 'unilaterally disarms the United States' but now is on hold

In order to "avoid the irreparable national security and economic harms" being threatened by a federal appeals court ruling, the Trump administration suggested it would appeal to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis the decision overturning most of the president's tariff plans if needed.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade has claimed, in its permanent injunction, that the tariff plans President Donald Trump has announced for China, Mexico, Canada and many more nations aren't valid.

Trump has been using tariff policies to push foreign nations into negotiating trade deals that are fair for American businesses and consumers. Over the past, many tariff agendas have had American consumers paying more and American businesses getting less than their overseas counterparts.

The case moved immediately to an appeals court, where the lower panel's decision was stayed for now, and Department of Justice lawyer Sosun Bae said it was damaging, as being "unprecedented and legally indefensible."

He warned, in fact, it could damage or destroy many of the trade deals and negotiations already underway.

The DOJ explained, "The injunction unilaterally disarms the United States. The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy."

The move is just one of dozens taken by federal courts since Trump took office for his second term in which they have taken over the decision-making process of the executive branch on issues ranging from the deportation of illegal alien criminals to economic policy to the hiring and firing of executive branch staff members.

According to a report in the Washington Examiner, the Trump administration signaled it would ask the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit acts immediately, which it did.

Bae warned, "The judicial coup is out of control."

Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro said in the report the court's decision reeks of "globalist" bias and he charged the judges with favoring importers.

The judges on the panel were Jane Restani, Timothy Reif and Gary Katzmann.

They claimed Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs exceeded presidential authority.

But, the report explained, "On page 35 of the decision, the judges noted that the administration would have been within its rights to impose the sweeping tariffs if it had relied on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974."

Analysts, however, pointed out that provides only "150 days" of implementation.

Trump's goal always has been a longer term solution for the economic imbalance now embedded in the world economy.

Fox News said in a separate report that another judge ruled in favor of a Chicago company by blocking five specific orders from the president regarding tariffs on China.

It was Rudolph Contreras, the Chicago judge, who said the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't authorize the president to impose the tariffs involved in the dispute.

The ruling was suspended for two weeks, also to allow for an appeal.

Trump announced a long list of tariffs in April, including a baseline 10% tariff for all countries.

Rick Woldenberg is chief of Learning Resources, the company that brought the Chicago dispute. He claimed its $2.3 million tariff bill for 2024 would jump to $100.2 million in 2025.

Administrative officials have argued unelected judges do not have the authority to decide how to properly address a national emergency.