Court reviews Trump tariff
A federal trade court heard challenges this week to President Trump’s new 10% global tariff, with states and small businesses arguing the administration is trying to resurrect powers the Supreme Court previously limited. The outcome matters for firms that import goods because judges could either curb the White House’s ability to impose broad import taxes or make this tariff regime a durable feature of U.S. commerce. ( )
A court in New York spent Friday asking whether President Trump found a legal back door for a tariff the Supreme Court had already blocked once this year. The case is about a flat 10 percent tax on many imports that took effect on February 24, 2026. (reuters.com, nytimes.com) The judges are on the United States Court of International Trade, a federal court that handles customs and import disputes. A three-judge panel heard arguments at 10 a.m. Eastern on April 10, 2026. (reuters.com) The unusual part is the law Trump used this time. He did not rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the emergency statute the Supreme Court rejected on February 20, 2026. (supremecourt.gov, congress.gov) He switched to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 within hours of that loss. That law lets a president impose a temporary import surcharge of as much as 15 percent for no more than 150 days unless Congress extends it. (reuters.com, law.cornell.edu, whitehouse.gov) Section 122 was written for a specific kind of monetary stress, not as a general weapon for trade policy. The statute talks about “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits or an imminent drop in the dollar, which is narrower than simply importing more goods than the country exports. (law.cornell.edu, reuters.com) That distinction is the heart of the lawsuit. Twenty-four mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses say the administration is treating an old emergency valve like an all-purpose tax lever. (reuters.com, nytimes.com) The Supreme Court case hanging over this hearing was Learning Resources v. Trump. In that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs, cutting down Trump’s earlier Canada, Mexico, China, and broad “reciprocal” import duties. (supremecourt.gov, congress.gov) The new case is narrower but could still reshape trade policy fast. If the trade court says Section 122 cannot be used this way, the 10 percent tariff could fall unless Congress steps in with a new law. (reuters.com, nytimes.com) If the administration wins, importers may be stuck planning around a tariff tool that can be turned on for 150 days at a time under a statute no president had used before February 2026. That would give the White House a much sturdier fallback after the Supreme Court shut the emergency-powers route. (reuters.com, congress.gov) The case does not cover every Trump tariff now on the books. Reuters reported that separate duties on steel, aluminum, and copper were imposed under more traditional trade authorities and are not part of this challenge. (reuters.com)
