U.S. court questions 10% tariffs
A U.S. federal trade court has begun probing whether President Trump’s 10% global tariffs can legally rest on a routine trade‑deficit rationale, with oral arguments heard this week in a challenge led by Oregon. Judges pressed the basis for the tariffs after the Supreme Court removed the administration’s preferred broader route, and press coverage describes the case as seeking to overturn the temporary tariffs. (indiatoday.in) (opb.org)
A federal trade court spent more than three hours on April 10 pressing the Trump administration on whether its 10% global tariffs fit a narrow 1974 law. (opb.org) The case is in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, where 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses are trying to block tariffs that took effect on February 24. Oregon is leading the states’ challenge. (reuters.com) President Donald Trump imposed the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which lets a president set import duties of up to 15% for 150 days during “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits or to prevent a sharp drop in the dollar. The current rate is 10%, and the tariffs are scheduled to expire on July 24 unless Congress acts. (opb.org) A balance-of-payments deficit is not the same thing as an ordinary trade gap. In court, Oregon’s lawyer Brian Marshall argued Section 122 was written for short-term monetary stress tied to the dollar and gold-era finance, not for the United States’ long-running habit of importing more goods than it exports. (reuters.com) That distinction matters because the Supreme Court already ruled on February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let a president impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion striking down Trump’s earlier emergency-based tariffs. (congress.gov) After that loss, the administration shifted to Section 122 the same day. Trump said the new tariffs were meant to address the United States trade deficit, and he later said he could raise them to 15%, though he has not done so. (opb.org) Judges on the three-member panel focused on what Congress meant by “balance-of-payments deficits” when it passed the law in 1974, and whether that phrase can cover a routine goods-trade deficit in 2026. Reuters reported the questioning suggested the court was skeptical that a broad trade deficit alone is enough. (reuters.com) The states say the tariffs bypass Congress’s constitutional power over tariffs and taxes, and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said families have been paying more for everyday goods because of them. The coalition is seeking to void the tariffs and recover tariff costs already paid. (opb.org) The administration argues persistent trade deficits justify the tariffs under Section 122 and has defended Trump’s use of executive power to respond without waiting for Congress. The hearing did not produce an immediate ruling. (reuters.com) For now, the tariffs stay in place while the court decides whether Trump found a lawful backup after the Supreme Court closed off his first route. (congress.gov)
