Trump's 10% tariffs struck down
- A 2-1 U.S. Court of International Trade panel ruled Thursday that Donald Trump’s February 10% global tariffs were unlawful under Section 122. - The judges blocked collections only for Washington state, Burlap & Barrel, and Basic Fun!, and ordered refunds with interest for duties they paid. - It’s Trump’s second tariff-law loss since February, and it weakens his fallback plan while an appeal heads toward the Federal Circuit.
Tariffs are back in court again — and this time Trump lost his backup plan. On Thursday, a split panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade said the administration’s 10% global tariffs were unlawful. Those duties were the White House’s replacement for an even broader tariff program the Supreme Court knocked out in February. So the big story here is simple: Trump tried a second legal route, and judges just said that route doesn’t work either. (politico.com) ### What exactly got struck down? The case is about the 10% worldwide tariffs Trump imposed in February 2026 on most imports. He used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used provision that lets a president impose temporary import surcharges for up to 150 days when the U.S. faces serious balance-of-payments problems. The trade court ruled 2-1 that this law did not authorize what Trump did here. (politico.com) ### Why was this Trump’s “Plan B”? Because Plan A already died. Trump’s earlier “Liberation Day” tariffs had relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. On February 28, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA did not give him authority to impose those sweeping tariffs. After that loss, the administratio(politico.com)cbsnews.com) ### Why did the judges say no? The core issue is the statute itself. Section 122 is tied to “large and serious” balance-of-payments problems — basically, trouble in the nation’s international payments position, not just a general complaint about trade deficits or imports. The majority said the administration had not shown the kind of problem the(cbsnews.com)d by law. (politico.com) ### So are the tariffs gone now? Not exactly. This is the catch. The court did not shut the tariffs off for everyone nationwide. It granted relief only to the plaintiffs it said had standing — Washington state, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, and toy company Basic Fun! For them, the administration has to stop collecting the du(politico.com)out. (politico.com) ### Why was the ruling so limited? Because winning the legal argument and getting broad relief are two different things. The panel said 24 states and other challengers were in the case, but only some plaintiffs cleared the standing hurdle. That left the injunction narrow. In practice, that means this opinion matters a lot as precedent, but it does not instantly rewrite every customs bill arriving at U.S. ports. (politico.com) ### What happens next? An appeal is the obvious next move. The case would go first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and from there it could end up back at the Supreme Court. The temporary Section 122 tariffs were also set to expire on July 24 anyway, which matters because the administration may be racing both the calendar and the courts. (politico.com) ### Why does this matter beyond these three plaintiffs? Because it tells you something bigger about Trump’s trade agenda. Presidents do have some delegated tariff power, but courts are drawing firmer lines around how far that power goes. Trump can still try narrower, slower tariff tools that require investigations and more pro(politico.com)(cbsnews.com) ### Bottom line This was not just a policy setback. It was a legal message: if Trump wants broad tariffs, he may need Congress or a much narrower statute. Right now, the courts are telling him that improvising new legal justifications after each loss is not enough. (politico.com)
