The Trump administration swiftly informed a federal court in Manhattan of its intention to appeal a significant ruling that halted many of the president’s international tariffs. Mere hours after a unanimous decision was delivered by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade, Department of Justice attorneys filed a request asking for a suspension of the ruling’s enforcement until an appellate court addresses the case.

The tariffs unilaterally imposed by the president, which became effective on April 2, were a cornerstone of the administration’s strategy to encourage foreign countries to negotiate more favorable trade agreements with the United States. This ruling marks a notable, though initial, obstacle in that strategy.

The administration asserted that “the Court erred” by interfering with Trump’s ability to conduct foreign affairs, arguing that halting the tariffs, even temporarily, could pose a grave risk to the state of international relations and U.S. national security.

“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment,” attorneys with the DOJ’s Civil Division wrote in the 17-page motion for a stay. “The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater.”

The motion quotes Secretary of State Marco Rubio as saying failure to stay the ruling would “cause significant and irreparable harm to U.S. foreign policy and national security” and “threaten broader U.S. strategic interests internationally.” It also quotes U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick claiming the ruling will create an ‘immediate risk” that America’s trading partners will “feel a renewed boldness to take advantage of” a perceived “new vulnerability by retaliating against the United States.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The administration further argued that Trump’s “chosen means to deal with unusual and extraordinary threats” were not reviewable by the courts and are “immune from judicial scrutiny.”

The appeal, which will be brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, will likely make its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices will be asked to weigh in on the president’s power to issue levies on imports from nearly every foreign nation without congressional approval.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated case, a coalition of Democratic states and several businesses, filed the suit last month alleging that Trump unlawfully and “arbitrarily” imposed the levies under an emergency statute in the absence of any actual emergency — an argument that parallels legal challenges to Trump’s invocation of an 18th-century wartime power to conduct mass deportations with little or no due process, despite the fact that the U.S. is not at war.

That statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), grants the executive sweeping authority to quickly combat international economic crises and permits the executive to issue sanctions as a rapid response to emergencies. The question is whether Trump’s unilateral imposition of the tariffs constitutes an unlawful usurpation of the legislative branch’s control of the country’s purse strings.

The three-judge panel, which consisted of appointees from Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump, on Wednesday reasoned that the tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President by the IEEPA.”

“Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress, we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President,” the panel wrote. “We instead read IEEPA’s provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers.”

The court also reasoned that Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, which were imposed under the guise of combating fentanyl trafficking, fell outside the scope of the statute because they did not deal directly with the supposed national emergency. Instead, they were intended to apply economic pressure on those nations and force them to do more to combat the drug trade.

In addition to its appeal, the Trump administration also continued its practice of attacking judges who rule against its political agenda.

“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement to NPR. “President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”