Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Discover

US Trade Court Rules Trump’s 10% Global Import Tariff Violated Federal Law

US Trade Court Rules Trump’s 10% Global Import Tariff Violated Federal Law
View gallery

A split U.S. Court of International Trade panel ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump’s 10% “global” import surcharge violated federal law, delivering a second major legal rebuke to his tariff agenda in less than three months.nytimes The decision shielded just three plaintiffs from the levy but left most of the hundreds of billions of dollars in duties still being collected while appeals proceed.nytimes +1

The 2–1 ruling centered on Trump’s February proclamation imposing a 10% surcharge on nearly all imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used Nixon‑era provision intended for short‑term balance‑of‑payments crises.aljazeera Judges Mark Barnett and Claire Kelly held that the administration stretched that statute beyond recognition, while Judge Timothy Stanceu dissented.aljazeera +1

Why the Court Said Trump Went Too Far

The majority found that Section 122 allows temporary surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days only to address “fundamental international payments problems,” such as acute balance‑of‑payments or currency crises.aljazeera +1 By contrast, Trump justified the tariffs using figures such as a roughly $1.2 trillion annual goods trade deficit and a current‑account deficit near 4% of GDP, problems economists see as long‑standing structural issues rather than an emergency.nytimes

“The proclamation … is invalid, and the tariffs imposed on Plaintiffs are unauthorized by law,” Barnett and Kelly wrote, concluding that the president has “no inherent authority” to impose tariffs beyond what Congress clearly delegates.aljazeera +1 Their decision came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s February ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump, which held 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act could not be used to support earlier, broader Trump tariffs.washingtonpost Together, the cases sharply narrow the legal pathways for the White House to unilaterally reset U.S. tariff policy.

Limited Relief Now, but Growing Pressure on Presidential Trade Powers

Despite declaring the surcharge illegal, the trade court declined to issue a nationwide injunction, finding that only Washington state and two import‑reliant companies, spice seller Burlap & Barrel and toy maker Basic Fun!, had shown direct injury and thus standing.nytimes +1 That means the 10% duty remains in place for nearly all importers until at least July 24, when the 150‑day Section 122 authority expires, or until a higher court intervenes.politico +1

Business groups welcomed the legal reasoning but criticized the narrow scope. “This ruling is an important win for American companies that rely on global manufacturing,” said Basic Fun! chief executive Jay Foreman, while an importer coalition argued the court “should have gone further and blocked collection of these tariffs during any appeal.”nytimes +1 Trump dismissed the decision, attacked the two judges as “radical left,” and vowed to pivot to other tools such as Section 301 of the same 1974 law to keep tariffs central to his economic agenda.nytimes +1

The Bigger Picture

The ruling underscored a broader judicial effort to reassert Congress’s constitutional control over tariffs after years in which presidents of both parties stretched old trade statutes to advance unilateral agendas.politico +1 With Section 122 now constrained and IEEPA off the table, any future move toward across‑the‑board import taxes will likely require either fresh legislation from a divided Congress or narrower, country‑ and product‑specific actions that are easier to challenge. For companies already navigating shifting tariff regimes, the decision adds short‑term uncertainty but signals a longer‑term trend: courts are increasingly skeptical of attempts to turn vintage trade laws into blank checks for sweeping, global duties.