SCOTUS decision cited in filings
Official filings and commentary to the Trade Court explicitly reference the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump as the legal pivot that voided the earlier tariff basis and prompted the temporary Section 122 step (x.com) (x.com). That linkage is central to current arguments about whether the administration can lawfully reimpose broad tariffs under the revised authorities (x.com).
The fight over President Donald Trump’s new 10 percent tariff is now centered on a simple timeline: the Supreme Court killed his earlier tariff theory on February 20, and the administration switched to Section 122 the same day. (supreme.justia.com) (everycrsreport.com) In *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump*, decided February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The case knocked out the legal basis for the administration’s earlier Canada, Mexico, China, and global “reciprocal” tariffs. (scotusblog.com) (supreme.justia.com) Hours later, Trump announced a replacement tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports. Congressional Research Service says Section 122 allows tariffs of up to 15 percent for no more than 150 days, and says no president had used it before this year. (everycrsreport.com) (cov.com) That sequence is now showing up directly in court papers. In the Court of International Trade, the government’s filing says the proclamation imposed tariffs “within the President’s authority under Section 122,” after the Supreme Court decision ended the earlier International Emergency Economic Powers Act route. (reason.com) The new cases ask whether Section 122 fits the problem Trump says he is solving. The statute speaks in the language of “balance-of-payments deficits” and temporary import restraints, while the administration has tied the tariff to persistent trade deficits and broader industrial policy. (everycrsreport.com) (politico.com) At an April 10 hearing, a three-judge Court of International Trade panel pressed government lawyers on that distinction. Reuters reported Judge Timothy Stanceu said the court was “not quite sure how to translate 1974 into 2026,” but added that a “balance of trade deficit” was not the same thing as a “balance of payments deficit.” (usnews.com) (politico.com) The plaintiffs are 24 mostly Democratic-led states and a separate group of small businesses, including Burlap and Barrel and Basic Fun. They argue the Section 122 move is an effort to sidestep the Supreme Court’s February ruling and reuse broad tariffs under a narrower law. (usnews.com) (internationaltradeinsights.com) The administration’s answer is that Section 122 expressly permits temporary duties and that current-account deficits count as the kind of international payments problem Congress had in mind. Its filing also argues the major questions doctrine does not block the tariff and says Section 122’s limits on rate and duration keep the delegation within constitutional bounds. (reason.com) Section 122’s clock is part of the stakes. Politico reported the judges noted the tariff can remain in effect for only 150 days, and a Congressional Research Service explainer says the White House has indicated it could use that period as a bridge to other trade authorities, including Section 232 and Section 301. (politico.com) (everycrsreport.com) So the current tariff fight is no longer mainly about the emergency-powers law the Supreme Court rejected. It is about whether the administration’s own filings can persuade the trade court that Section 122 is a lawful replacement rather than a temporary workaround. (supreme.justia.com) (reason.com)
