Trump tariffs blocked by federal court

Published May 8, 2026 by The Daily Scout

- A 2-1 panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled May 7 that Trump’s fallback 10% global tariffs were unlawful. - The judges said Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act did not authorize this move; the order had been set to run until July 24. - The ruling only shields Washington state, Burlap & Barrel, and Basic Fun! for now, but it undercuts Trump’s backup tariff strategy.

Why it matters

A trade court just knocked down President Trump’s backup tariff plan. That matters because this was the administration’s workaround after the Supreme Court already killed the first, broader version in February. So the big shift is not just one more legal loss — it’s that two different legal theories for a near-universal tariff wall have now run into courts. The White House can appeal, and probably will, but the path just got narrower. (politico.com) ### What did the court actually do? On May 7, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade said Trump’s 10% global tariffs were “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.” The vote was 2-1. The administration had imposed those duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier worldwide tariffs on February 28. (king5.com) ### What were these tariffs supposed to be? They were temporary 10% tariffs on imports from most of the world — basically a flatter, simpler substitute for the broader tariff regime that had already failed in court. Trump’s team used Se(king5.com)nt rewrite of U.S. trade policy. (king5.com) ### Why did the judges say no? The majority said Section 122 is narrow. It lets a president impose temporary import surcharges when the U.S. faces serious balance-of-payments problems. The judges concluded that the administration’s read(king5.com)said the president had more leeway. (politico.com) ### Does this kill the tariffs for everyone? Not yet. The immediate relief applies only to the plaintiffs the court said had standing — Washington state, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, and toy company Basic Fun! That’s the catch. This was a sharp legal rebuke, but not a nationwi(politico.com)til appeals or follow-on cases sort it out. (politico.com) ### Why is Washington state in this case? Because states and small businesses had a concrete argument that these tariffs were hurting them directly. Washington joined 24 Democratic-led states in challenging the policy, but the panel found standing only for Washington and the two (politico.com)immediate relief. (politico.com) ### Didn’t Trump already lose this fight once? Yes — just under a different statute. The first round relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The Supreme Court said on February 28 that IEEPA did not authorize those sweeping tariffs. Section 122 was the administration’s Plan B. Now Plan B has also been rejected by the trade court. (king5.com) ### So what can the administration do now? Appeal first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and maybe eventually back to the Supreme Court. At the same time, the administration is still exploring other routes to tariff(king5.com) version much harder to pull off by executive order alone. (king5.com) ### Bottom line This ruling is bigger than one 10% levy. It says courts are not buying the idea that the president can build a universal tariff wall by hopping from one old statute to another. Trump still has tools left. But the broad, unilateral version keeps getting cut back. (politico.com)

Key numbers

Court of International Trade ruled May 7 that Trump’s fallback 10% global tariffs were unlawful.
The judges said Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act did not authorize this move; the order had been set to run until July 24.
On May 7, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of International Trade said Trump’s 10% global tariffs were “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.” The vote was 2-1.

What happens next

A trade court just knocked down President Trump’s backup tariff plan.
The White House can appeal, and probably will, but the path just got narrower.
On May 7, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S.

Sources

Quick answers

What happened in Trump tariffs blocked by federal court?

A 2-1 panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled May 7 that Trump’s fallback 10% global tariffs were unlawful. The judges said Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act did not authorize this move; the order had been set to run until July 24. The ruling only shields Washington state, Burlap & Barrel, and Basic Fun! for now, but it undercuts Trump’s backup tariff strategy.

Why does Trump tariffs blocked by federal court matter?

A trade court just knocked down President Trump’s backup tariff plan. That matters because this was the administration’s workaround after the Supreme Court already killed the first, broader version in February. So the big shift is not just one more legal loss — it’s that two different legal theories for a near-universal tariff wall have now run into courts. The White House can appeal, and probably will, but the path just got narrower. (politico.com) What did the court actually do? On May 7, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade said Trump’s 10% global tariffs were “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.” The vote was 2-1. The administration had imposed those duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier worldwide tariffs on February 28. (king5.com) What were these tariffs supposed to be? They were temporary 10% tariffs on imports from most of the world — basically a flatter, simpler substitute for the broader tariff regime that had already failed in court. Trump’s team used Se(king5.com)nt rewrite of U.S. trade policy. (king5.com) Why did the judges say no? The majority said Section 122 is narrow. It lets a president impose temporary import surcharges when the U.S. faces serious balance-of-payments problems. The judges concluded that the administration’s read(king5.com)said the president had more leeway. (politico.com) Does this kill the tariffs for everyone? Not yet. The immediate relief applies only to the plaintiffs the court said had standing — Washington state, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, and toy company Basic Fun! That’s the catch. This was a sharp legal rebuke, but not a nationwi(politico.com)til appeals or follow-on cases sort it out. (politico.com) Why is Washington state in this case? Because states and small businesses had a concrete argument that these tariffs were hurting them directly. Washington joined 24 Democratic-led states in challenging the policy, but the panel found standing only for Washington and the two (politico.com)immediate relief. (politico.com) Didn’t Trump already lose this fight once? Yes — just under a different statute. The first round relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The Supreme Court said on February 28 that IEEPA did not authorize those sweeping tariffs. Section 122 was the administration’s Plan B. Now Plan B has also been rejected by the trade court. (king5.com) So what can the administration do now? Appeal first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and maybe eventually back to the Supreme Court. At the same time, the administration is still exploring other routes to tariff(king5.com) version much harder to pull off by executive order alone. (king5.com) Bottom line This ruling is bigger than one 10% levy. It says courts are not buying the idea that the president can build a universal tariff wall by hopping from one old statute to another. Trump still has tools left. But the broad, unilateral version keeps getting cut back. (politico.com)