U.S. tariff legality tested

A three-judge trade court panel is weighing whether President Donald Trump can keep a 10% tariff on most imports in place after states and small businesses challenged the policy in New York on April 10. (cit.uscourts.gov) (apnews.com) The cases are State of Oregon v. Trump and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. Trump, both heard by the United States Court of International Trade at 10 a.m. Eastern on April 10. Reuters and The Associated Press reported that 24 mostly Democratic-led states joined the challenge, along with two small businesses. (cit.uscourts.gov) (usnews.com) (apnews.com) The tariff at issue took effect on February 24, 2026, and the administration says it was imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law lets a president put a temporary surcharge of up to 15% on imports for up to 150 days to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit. (usnews.com) (opb.org) This fight follows a broader court defeat for Trump’s earlier tariff strategy. Reuters reported that the Supreme Court struck down his fastest and broadest tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in February, pushing the administration to a narrower statute with a 150-day cap. (usnews.com) (apnews.com) The White House’s earlier trade orders show how the administration framed the issue before that court setback. In an April 2, 2025 executive order and fact sheet, Trump declared a national emergency over trade deficits and said he was using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a 10% tariff on all countries, with higher country-specific rates in some cases. (whitehouse.gov 1) (whitehouse.gov 2) In court on April 10, judges pressed government lawyers on whether a trade deficit fits the 1974 law’s balance-of-payments language. Reuters reported that the panel questioned whether the statute, written when the United States still managed the dollar against gold, can support a global tariff in today’s system. (msn.com) (bloomberg.com) The administration is also floating a separate tariff threat tied to national security and Iran. CNBC reported on April 13 that Trump said China could face a 50% tariff if the United States determines Beijing is supplying Iran with man-portable air defense systems, though CNBC said both the reported shipment and Trump’s follow-through remained unverified or unclear. (cnbc.com) Trump had already broadened that warning on April 9, saying any country supplying military weapons to Iran would face immediate 50% tariffs with no exemptions, according to Reuters. China denied recent military support for Iran, and Reuters reported that China’s defense ministry said Beijing had “never” taken steps that would add fuel to the conflict. (usnews.com) (cnbc.com) For importers, the court case is about whether the current 10% charge survives long enough to keep raising landed costs on goods that enter the United States. For manufacturers and technology buyers, the separate China threat points to a second risk: a sudden jump in prices for parts, equipment, and finished products if the administration turns a warning into an order. (opb.org) (cnbc.com) The next step is a ruling from the Court of International Trade on whether Trump’s temporary import tax can stay in force. Until that decision arrives, the legal limit on presidential tariff power is being tested in court while new tariff threats keep moving in public. (cit.uscourts.gov) (apnews.com)