Court questions Trump's global tariffs
A federal trade court heard a new challenge to the administration’s 10% global tariffs, with judges questioning whether a routine trade deficit justifies the move under a 1974 law. (opb.org) Multiple outlets reported the hearing and legal scrutiny, signalling continued judicial review of tariff legality. (chicagotribune.com) (indiatoday.in)
A federal trade court pressed the Trump administration on whether a routine trade deficit can legally support its new 10 percent tariff on most imports. (politico.com) A three-judge panel at the United States Court of International Trade heard arguments in New York on Friday, April 10, over tariffs Trump imposed on February 24 after the Supreme Court blocked his broader earlier tariff plan. (opb.org) The administration is now relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which lets a president impose global tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days without Congress, then requires congressional approval to keep them in place. (nbcnews.com) Judges questioned whether that law was written for a narrow balance-of-payments problem, not for a long-running trade gap like the one the administration cited. They also asked what Congress meant by “balance-of-payments deficits” when it passed the law in 1974. (thehindu.com) The challengers include 24 mostly Democratic-led states and a group of small businesses, which argued that the White House is using an old statute as a workaround after losing the earlier tariff case. (bloomberg.com) Government lawyers argued that Section 122 gives the president broad discretion to respond to trade imbalances and said the 10 percent rate falls within the law’s express cap. (westhawaiitoday.com) The case lands after months of legal fights over Trump’s tariff powers. In February 2026, the Supreme Court struck down his prior tariffs that had been justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pushing the administration to a different statute. (opb.org) Section 122 was created during the era when the United States was still dealing with exchange-rate and payments pressures tied to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. The states say that history shows Congress did not mean it as a standing license for across-the-board tariffs whenever the country imports more than it exports. (indiatoday.in) No ruling came from Friday’s hearing, but the judges’ questions showed the administration still has to defend the legal foundation of a tariff policy it recast after its first version failed in court. (chicagotribune.com)
