Court reviews 10% global tariff

A court fight over a 10% tax on imports is happening less than two months after the Supreme Court knocked out President Donald Trump’s earlier tariff plan on February 20, 2026. The new hearing is in the United States Court of International Trade on April 10, with a three-judge panel reviewing whether the replacement tariff can stay in place. (reuters.com) (cit.uscourts.gov) The switch happened fast. Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, the White House issued a new proclamation under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and that 10% import surcharge took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on February 24 for up to 150 days. (whitehouse.gov 1) (whitehouse.gov 2) Section 122 is a narrow tool, not a blank check. Congress wrote it to let a president impose a temporary surcharge of as much as 15% when the United States has a serious international payments problem, which is closer to a dollar-and-finance emergency than an ordinary complaint about buying more goods than it sells. (whitehouse.gov) (jurist.org) That legal distinction is the whole case. The states say the administration is treating the goods trade gap like a balance-of-payments crisis even though those are different measurements, and they argue the broader balance picture was only about negative 0.2% of gross domestic product in 2024. (jurist.org) (politico.com) The challengers are a big group: 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses. They want the court to block the tariff and order refunds, arguing the White House cannot do with a 1974 trade law what the Supreme Court just said it could not do with a 1977 emergency law. (reuters.com) (supremecourt.gov) The administration’s answer is that this is a different statute with different limits. Its February proclamation says the United States needs the tariff to address “fundamental international payments problems,” and outside trade lawyers note Section 122 may be on firmer legal ground than the broader emergency-power tariffs the justices rejected. (whitehouse.gov) (politico.com) Even if the White House wins this round, Section 122 has a built-in clock. The law caps the surcharge at 150 days unless Congress extends it, which is why companies, retailers, and investors are watching for the administration’s next move almost as closely as the judges’ ruling. (whitehouse.gov) (msn.com) That next move could be more tariffs under other laws. Trade advisers have been pointing to Section 232 national-security cases and Section 301 unfair-trade investigations as longer-lasting routes, which means the courtroom fight is partly about one 10% levy and partly about how broad the president’s tariff toolbox still is after the Supreme Court’s ruling. (grantthornton.com) (politico.com) For businesses, the problem is not just the 10% itself. A spice importer like Burlap and Barrel has to price inventory months ahead, and every time a tariff gets imposed, struck down, replaced, or refunded, contracts, customs filings, and shelf prices all have to be recalculated. (carolinajournal.com) (reuters.com) The pressure is spreading well beyond ports and warehouses. CNN reported on April 9 that Iowa farmers are heading into planting season with diesel and fertilizer costs rising as the Iran war disrupts energy markets, and tariff uncertainty is landing on top of that like a second bill arriving before the first one is paid. (cnn.com) (marketplace.org) So the judges are deciding more than whether one February tariff survives. They are deciding whether the White House found a lawful detour around a Supreme Court roadblock, or whether this 10% surcharge is just the same trip in a different car. (reuters.com) (nytimes.com)