Article – I’ve been tracking the implications of yesterday’s federal court ruling from Washington that sent shockwaves through North American trade relations. The decision strikes at the heart of former President Trump’s Section 232 tariff authority—a ruling with major ramifications for Canadian steel and aluminum producers who’ve navigated turbulent trade waters since 2018.
When I reached Jean Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, by phone this morning, his relief was palpable. “This ruling confirms what we’ve argued for years—that national security was never the genuine concern,” Simard told me. “For Canadian producers who weathered millions in lost revenue, this vindicates our position but doesn’t erase the damage done.”
The U.S. Court of International Trade’s three-judge panel determined that Trump’s administration failed to follow proper procedural requirements when imposing the sweeping metal tariffs on Canada and other allies. More significantly, the court found the executive branch overstepped its authority by extending the national security justification well beyond what Congress intended when creating these emergency trade powers.
For context, Trump’s 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminum cost Canadian exporters approximately $3.2 billion before exemptions were negotiated in 2019, according to Statistics Canada data. The tariffs triggered immediate retaliatory measures from Ottawa, targeting $16.6 billion in American goods from bourbon to playing cards.
Walking through Toronto’s manufacturing district yesterday afternoon, I spoke with Michael Schweitzer, operations manager at Dominion Castings, who remembers the chaos. “We had supply contracts thrown into disarray overnight. Some American customers simply couldn’t absorb the price increase, and we lost orders we’d maintained for decades.”
The court’s ruling specifically challenges the president’s ability to impose indefinite tariffs without congressional oversight—a power that has grown increasingly controversial across administrations. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves wrote in the majority opinion that “Congress did not intend to give the President unfettered discretion to determine the duration of action taken pursuant to Section 232.”
Trade lawyers I consulted view this as potentially transformative. “This significantly narrows presidential authority in trade emergencies,” explained Brenda Swick, partner at Cassels Brock & Blackwell in Toronto. “Going forward, any administration would need to demonstrate genuine national security threats, not just economic leverage.”
The Biden administration hasn’t indicated whether it will appeal the ruling, creating uncertainty for both Canadian exporters and American manufacturers who’ve adjusted their supply chains multiple times in recent years.
For communities like Hamilton, Ontario—where one in four jobs connects to steel production—the ruling offers hope but no immediate relief. At ArcelorMittal Dofasco’s main gate, shift supervisor Darren Maloney told me, “We’re still dealing with the aftereffects of those tariffs. Customer relationships that took decades to build were damaged overnight.”
The ruling comes at a pivotal moment in Canada-U.S. trade relations. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai are scheduled to meet next week in Ottawa, where this court decision will inevitably influence discussions about strengthening supply chain resilience.
According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, cross-border trade exceeds $2.5 billion daily, supporting approximately 9 million American jobs. “This interdependence is what made the national security justification so absurd,” said Mark Agnew, the Chamber’s senior vice president of policy, when I spoke with him this morning. “Canadian aluminum literally powers U.S. military aircraft.”
The ruling also carries significant implications for current trade tensions. The Biden administration has maintained many Trump-era tariffs while adding its own protective measures for American industries. Just last month, the Commerce Department announced new investigations into Chinese steel transshipment through Mexico and Canada.
While the court’s decision doesn’t automatically restore pre-2018 trade conditions, it establishes a crucial precedent limiting executive authority in future trade disputes. For Canadian producers who’ve invested millions in compliance and supply chain restructuring, the ruling offers validation but comes years after the damage was done.
“We’re still calculating the long-term costs,” explained Catherine Cobden, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association. “Beyond immediate financial losses, we saw investment postponed, jobs eliminated, and strategic partnerships undermined. Some of those effects can’t be undone.”
As Washington and Ottawa navigate this shifting legal landscape, the ruling underscores a fundamental reality in North American trade: policy uncertainty carries real economic consequences that reverberate through communities on both sides of the border.
