November 5th Tariff Ruling: Seperating Signal from Noise

16/10/25

Commentators are increasingly focused on the upcoming U.S. court ruling expected on November 5, which will address the legality of certain tariff measures imposed during the Trump administration. Given the attention this case is receiving, it may be helpful to clarify the origin and legal foundations of the various tariff regimes currently in force. While headlines may suggest a sweeping rollback of the Trump-era tariff architecture, the actual scope of the case is considerably narrower.

The case in question concerns the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose reciprocal or broad-based tariffs during a declared national emergency. These measures were implemented via executive order, largely bypassing Congressional oversight, and have since faced legal scrutiny. A lower court ruling already found aspects of this approach unlawful. The upcoming judgement will determine whether the appellate court agrees, potentially limiting or striking down certain emergency-based trade measures.

The key distinction lies in legal origin. Many of the most commercially significant tariffs, particularly those affecting industrial metals, are grounded not in IEEPA but in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This statute provides a formal, investigative pathway for the executive branch to impose trade restrictions on national security grounds. Taris on steel and aluminium have been in place under this authority since 2018 and were significantly expanded in 2025 to include a broader set of derivative products. More recently, as of August 1, 2025, semi-finished and copper-intensive products were added to the Section 232 regime, with a 50 percent tariff applied to the copper content of covered imports.

Section 232 tariffs are not part of the current legal challenge. They are statutory, not emergency-based, and follow an established procedural framework that includes recommendations from the Department of Commerce. These measures, covering steel, aluminium, copper, and potentially autos, are not expected to be affected by the court’s decision.

Similarly, Section 301 tariffs, which were imposed in response to unfair trade practices primarily targeting imports from China, are based on a separate statutory framework. They fall under the Trade Act of 1974 and are implemented by the U.S. Trade Representative following a formal determination of discriminatory or unreasonable practices. These tariffs are also not within the scope of the IEEPA case.

The same applies to Section 201 safeguard tariffs, which are designed to temporarily protect domestic industries from surging imports. These are currently in effect for products such as solar panels and washing machines and are unrelated to emergency powers.

The tariffs that may be directly affected by the November 5 ruling are those that were imposed under IEEPA. These include various reciprocal tariffs enacted during the Trump administration, often framed as "mirror" measures to respond to tariffs imposed by other countries. They were implemented via emergency proclamations and have been challenged on the grounds that they exceed the executive branch’s authority under IEEPA.

If the court rules against the administration, some or all of these IEEPA-based tariffs may be invalidated. However, this would not dismantle Section 232, 301, or 201 tariffs. Any market reaction should therefore distinguish between statutory tariffs, which are backed by longstanding legislation, and emergency tariffs potentially affected by this ruling.

In the case of copper, it is worth noting that the 50 percent tariff currently applied to semi-finished and derivative copper products is based on Section 232. The measure excludes raw forms such as cathodes, anodes, concentrates, and scrap. The tariff is calculated based solely on the copper content, and U.S. Customs requires importers to declare that content separately at entry. This structure follows the model used for aluminium and steel and is not subject to the IEEPA challenge.

If the court’s decision limits IEEPA authority, one plausible consequence may be that future administrations rely more heavily on Section 232 to justify trade protection. This statute has so far proved resilient to legal challenge and continues to serve as the primary framework for national security-based trade measures. However, any such shift would come with its own political and procedural considerations.

As the ruling approaches, it will be important to avoid conflating emergency powers with statutory regimes. While the legal outcome may restrict the use of IEEPA for trade measures, the majority of tariffs relevant to metals and manufacturing supply chains are likely to remain unaffected.

All legal and tariff details are current as of October 3, 2025. The Section 232 copper tariffs were confirmed via Presidential Proclamation 10790 (August 1, 2025), as published in the Federal Register. Section 301 and Section 232 frameworks were validated through official USTR and Commerce Department portals. The ongoing IEEPA legal challenge was cross-checked against coverage from SCOTUSblog, Law360, and the Financial Times (October 2025). Statutory distinctions were reviewed using the Congressional Research Service guide to U.S. trade laws.

This article is intended for general information purposes only and reflects the market environment at the time of writing. It does not constitute investment advice, a personal recommendation, or an offer to engage in any trading activity. The content does not take into account individual objectives or circumstances and should not be relied upon as the basis for any investment decision. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

For more information and important risk disclosures, please see our Trading Notes and Privacy Policy. AMT Futures Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.