The federal appeals court temporarily suspended the ruling of a panel of judges on Thursday that stopped President Donald Trump’s tariffs on international trading partners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a brief ruling that the judgment and permanent injunction signed by the Court of International Trade were temporarily retained. ”

The decision suspended the lower court's ruling until at least June 9, when both parties will make legal arguments about whether the case should be suspended when the appeal is underway.

The attorney for Jeffrey Schwab of the Center for Free Justice said in a statement that the ruling was "just a step in the process, as the court believes the government requires a longer stay pending application pending appeal."

"We believe the Federal Tour will eventually deny the government's motion," Schwab said.

"It's a huge victory for the president," Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Commission, told Fox News. "We're very happy with this ruling."

Peter Navarro, a senior adviser to the White House trade and manufacturing, predicts that even if ultimately fails in this situation, the administration will find a way to raise tariffs.

"Even if we lose, we will do this in another way," Navarro said, because Trump has multiple options to keep the tariffs. He said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will elaborate on how the government will respond in the next two days.

Wednesday's judgment came from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which usually hears cases involving issues of tariff classification, import transactions and customs law.

The administration has been trying to face tariff challenges in the court, but after the ruling, Stephen Miller, a senior White House adviser, accused the New York City-based court of conducting a "judicial coup."

In its decision, a panel of three judges appointed by Reagan, Obama and Trump found that the decades-old international emergency economic power bill cited in many execution orders, a federal law that did not “delegate the power of boundless tariffs to the president.”

Earlier Thursday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. issued a similar ruling, finding many of Trump's tariffs "illegal".

However, the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras only affected a pair of educational toy makers that filed lawsuits, deeming the president unauthorized to impose sanctions and his changing tariff threatened to sink their small businesses.

Contreras said the main question in the case was whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPA) “enables the president to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, restore and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy. The court agreed with the plaintiffs.”

He noted that no other president ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs and said allowing Trump to do so would mean Congress’ restrictions on his powers “will be covered up if the president can invoke almost unrestricted tariff powers.”

Trump used tariffs and tariff threats to start trade negotiations and was accused of "depriving" many countries in the United States with unfair trade practices.

In court documents, the government urged Contreras not to stop tariffs, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that it would cause significant and irreparable harm to U.S. foreign policy and national security, as negotiations with trading partners were "a delicate state."

"Cabinet officials claim to be a court that prohibits tariffs announced in the challenged order, and U.S. trading partners can retaliate against tariffs. On the global stage, the United States will feel embarrassed; the U.S.'s manufacturing status may be so weak that the country may not be able to produce weapons and other resources to defend its own weapons and other resources," his decision. ”

He said, “If anything, the consequences described by government officials in the declaration will flow to the orders of the Trade Court rather than his narrower orders, but he also advised the government to be blamed only.

"The president cannot take illegal action and then use the presumptive shield of the presumptive shield that the action is declared illegal," he wrote.

The government is also filing a lawsuit.