Court hears challenge to Trump tariffs

A federal trade court spent April 10 testing whether President Donald Trump had legal authority to impose his new 10 percent global tariffs after the Supreme Court blocked his earlier tariff plan in February. (opb.org) The case was argued before the United States Court of International Trade in New York, where Oregon is leading a coalition of 24 states and small businesses are pressing parallel challenges. The states filed their suit on March 5, and the court set the hearing for April 10. (doj.state.or.us) Trump’s latest tariffs took effect on February 24 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law lets a president impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days without Congress, and Trump set the rate at 10 percent after saying he might raise it later. (nbcnews.com) The legal fight turns on a narrow phrase in that 1974 law: “balance-of-payments deficits.” Judges pressed both sides on whether that term covers a modern trade deficit, or a different kind of international payments problem tied to the old dollar-and-gold system. (opb.org) That distinction became central after the Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 did not let Trump use emergency powers to impose his broader tariffs. Section 122 became the administration’s backup route within days of that loss. (opb.org) Oregon and the other states say Congress wrote Section 122 for currency and payments crises, not for the long-running gap between what the United States imports and exports. Oregon’s litigation page says the law authorizes limited tariffs for “balance-of-payment deficits,” but “does not authorize tariffs for trade deficits,” which is the basis Trump cited. (doj.state.or.us) The administration argues Section 122 is broad enough to cover the current deficit, and some trade lawyers think the court may defer to the president. Ryan Majerus, a former United States trade official, told The Associated Press he would be “stunned” if challengers win and said the judges may leave the tariffs in place because they expire soon. (opb.org) The timeline is short. Under the statute, the tariffs are scheduled to expire on July 24 unless Congress approves an extension, which means the court is weighing a temporary import tax with a fixed end date even as the legal meaning of Section 122 remains unsettled. (opb.org)