Trump tariffs struck down by court

Tariffs are back in court again — and this time Trump’s backup plan got hit. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the administration unlawfully used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% tariff on imports from nearly every country. That matters because this was the White House’s replacement for the much broader tariff program the Supreme Court knocked out in February. So the basic story is simple: Trump lost his first tariff theory, tried a narrower one, and now that one is in trouble too. ### What exactly did the court strike down? The court struck down the February 2026 proclamation that imposed a temporary 10% global tariff under Section 122. In a 2-1 decision, Judges Mark Barnett and Claire Kelly said that move was not authorized by the statute Trump used. Judge Timothy Stanceu dissented. The majority said the proclamation was “invalid” and the tariffs on the plaintiffs were unauthorized by law. (politico.com) ### Why was Section 122 the whole fight? Section 122 gives a president some emergency room to act on trade, but it is narrower than the powers Trump had tried before. It allows temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for no more than 150 days when the U.S. faces serious balance-of-payments problems. The court’s basic view was that the administration tried to stretch that language far beyond what Congress meant. So this was not just a policy loss — it was another separation-of-powers loss. (politico.com) ### Why was Trump using this law at all? Because the Supreme Court had already blown up the first version. In Learning Resources v. Trump, decided February 20, 2026, the Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose sweeping tariffs. Those earlier tariffs included a baseline duty of at least 10% on imports from all trading partners, plus higher rates on some countries. After that loss, the administration pivoted to Section 122 as a fallback. (politico.com) Turns out the courts were skeptical of that move too. ### Did the ruling kill the tariff for everyone? Not yet — and this is the catch. The court blocked collection only for the plaintiffs with standing: Washington state, spice company Burlap & Barrel, and toy company Basic Fun! The decision did not automatically give nationwide relief to every importer paying the duty. That means the legal logic is broad, but the immediate remedy is narrow unless more courts extend it or the government loses on appeal. (supremecourt.gov) ### So what happens next? An appeal is the obvious next step. Cases from the Court of International Trade go first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and from there could end up back at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the tariff was already temporary and was set to expire on July 24, 2026. That creates a weird race between the calendar and the courts. If the appeal drags, the policy could partly die of old age before judges fully settle the question. (politico.com) ### Why does this matter beyond trade lawyers? Because businesses hate tariff whiplash. Importers have been trying to price goods, sign contracts, and decide where to source parts while the legal basis for those costs keeps changing. For manufacturers thinking about reshoring, this kind of instability matters almost as much as the tariff level itself. A tariff that might vanish in court does not shape long-term investment the same way a durable law does. (usnews.com) That uncertainty also hangs over trade talks, because other countries now have to guess which U.S. tariff threats are real and which ones are temporary courtroom bait. ### Bottom line? This was another big judicial rebuke to Trump’s attempt to build a global tariff wall without Congress. But the practical effect is messier than the headline. The legal theory took a hit. The policy may linger during appeal. And companies are still stuck planning around rules that keep changing faster than supply chains can. (politico.com)