{"id":55177,"date":"2025-05-29T15:00:27","date_gmt":"2025-05-29T13:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=55177"},"modified":"2025-05-29T15:00:29","modified_gmt":"2025-05-29T13:00:29","slug":"court-stops-trumps-tariffs-iphones-would-be-unaffordable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/gericht-stoppt-trumps-zoelle-iphones-waeren-unbezahlbar","title":{"rendered":"Court stops Trump's tariffs \u2013 iPhones would be unaffordable"},"content":{"rendered":"

A court has stopped tariffs that US President Donald Trump wanted to impose without congressional approval. These tariffs would, among other things, have massively increased iPhone prices. In extreme cases, an iPhone could have cost over $4,000. The court has now ruled that the president is prohibited from acting in this way. This affects not only Apple, but also all consumers who buy products from abroad.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tariffs sound like economic policy, but they have a direct impact on consumers. When the government imposes tariffs on imported products, prices rise. So you pay more \u2013 for a smartphone, for example. What starts as a political decision quickly ends up on your bill. That's why it's important to know what's behind such tariff decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Trump had planned<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The US government wanted to impose far-reaching tariffs on imported goods \u2013 especially on products from China. This included Apple devices like the iPhone. One concrete proposal was a 25 percent tariff on all iPhones manufactured outside the US. Apple produces the majority of its devices in China, so this regulation would have affected the entire product range. The move was justified by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. This law allows the US president to take certain measures in times of economic emergency. Trump argued that this allowed him to impose tariffs even without congressional approval.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling of the US Commercial Court<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously rejected this view. Three justices ruled that the IEEPA does not provide a basis for imposing tariffs independently. The court made it clear that if the president enforces such tariffs without parliamentary oversight, this violates the separation of powers. The court stated that such an interpretation amounts to an impermissible abdication of legislative powers. It is unconstitutional for a president to assume unlimited tariff powers through the IEEPA\u2014regardless of whether this is justified by the nondelegation doctrine, the big question theory, or the separation of powers more generally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consequences of the stopped tariff plans<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The tariffs were part of an initiative called "Liberation Day," with which the Trump administration sought to correct the US trade imbalance. Although the measures were not yet fully in effect, they had already caused considerable uncertainty for companies\u2014especially Apple. According to calculations by CNET, the planned tariffs would have led to massive price increases. The most expensive model, the iPhone 16 Pro Max with 1 TB of storage, could have risen from $1,599 to over $4,300 in the worst case scenario. Even the base model, the iPhone 16E with 128 GB, could have cost as much as $1,617. The price increases resulted from a combination of several planned measures: a 30 percent tariff on Chinese goods, which was to rise to 145 percent by August, and an additional Apple-specific tariff of 25 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n