Trump's 10% tariffs blocked by court
- A split U.S. Court of International Trade panel ruled on May 7 that Trump’s 10% global tariffs were unlawful under Section 122. - The 2-1 decision blocks collection only for Washington state and two importers, while the 10% duties still apply to everyone else. - The ruling dents Trump’s backup tariff strategy after his February Supreme Court loss, but an appeal keeps trade uncertainty alive.
Tariffs are back in court again — and Trump just took another hit. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade said his 10% global import tariff was not a lawful use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. But this was not a full shutdown. The judges blocked the tariff only for the plaintiffs who sued, so most importers are still paying it for now. (whbl.com) ### What exactly did the court do? A divided three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Trump’s February proclamation imposing the 10% duty was “invalid” as applied to the plaintiffs before the court. The winners were Washington state and two companies that challenged the tariff. The judges did not issue a nationwide order, wh(whbl.com)ourt steps in. (politico.com) ### What law was Trump trying to use? This was Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a pretty obscure tool. It lets a president impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% for no more than 150 days, but only in a balance-of-payments crisis or to stop a serious dollar problem. Basically, it was written for currency and external-payments stress, not as a general-purpose tariff weapon. (law.cornell.edu) ### Why did the judges say no? The core problem was the fit between the law and Trump’s rationale. His administration argued that persistent U.S. trade deficits justified the tariff. The majority said that was not what Section 122 covers. In plain English — a long-running trade deficit is not the same thing as the kind of balance-of-payments emergency the statute was built for. (whbl.com) ### Why only block it for a few plaintiffs? Standing. Courts only give relief to parties they think can show a direct legal injury. The panel said Washington state and the two importers cleared that bar, but the other states in the case did not. That is why the ruling matters a lot as precedent but does not yet free the broader business world from the tariff. (politico.com) ### Why is this such a big deal? Because this was Trump’s backup plan. Earlier this year — on February 28, 2026 — the Supreme Court struck down his broader global tariffs that had been imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After that, the White House pivoted to Section 122. Now that route has also been rejected by a trade court, at least in this case. (whbl.com) ### Does the tariff disappear now? Not really. For most importers, no. Reuters noted the duties are expected to expire in July anyway, but the administration is widely expected to appeal before then. So companies are still stuck in the same practical mess — pay now, track exposure, and wait to see whether courts eventually force refunds. (whbl.com) ### What happens next? The next stop would likely be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the administration appeals, the legal fight could outlast the tariff itself, because the real money question is refunds. That is the part businesses care about most — not just whether the tariff survives, but who gets paid back if it does not. (politico.com) ### Bottom line? Trump’s 10% tariff was supposed to be the cleaner, narrower replacement after his bigger tariff loss. Turns out that fallback is shaky too. The court did not blow up the tariff for everyone, but it did say the legal foundation looks wrong — and that makes the whole strategy harder to defend. (whbl.com)
