Jamieson Greer defends tariff appeal

Tariffs are back in court again — and this time the fight is over the backup plan. On May 8, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the Trump administration expects to win its appeal after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the president’s 10% global tariff was unlawful. That matters because this tariff was supposed to replace the broader worldwide duties the Supreme Court knocked out in February. So the legal question now is simple: can the White House keep a universal tariff alive by switching statutes? ### What tariff are we talking about? This is the flat 10% duty Trump imposed on imports in February 2026 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The administration framed it as a temporary import surcharge to deal with what it called “fundamental international payment problems.” Section 122 is real tariff authority, but it is narrow — it caps tariffs at 15% and 150 days unless Congress steps in. (usnews.com) ### Why did Trump use Section 122? Because his first tariff theory failed. In February, the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s earlier global tariffs that had relied on emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After that, the White House moved fast to a narrower law that looked sturdier on paper and let it keep a 10% across-the-board tariff in place. (ustr.gov) ### Why did the trade court reject it? The court said Section 122 was not written for the kind of trade deficit the administration pointed to. The majority read the statute as targeting a balance-of-payments crisis — basically a problem with the nation’s international payments position — not the ordinary fact that the U.S. imports more goods than it exports. That distinction sounds technical, but it is the whole case. If the law is for one kind of imbalance and the White House used it for another, the tariff falls. (ustr.gov) ### What is Greer’s argument? Greer says the court read the law too narrowly. He has been arguing more broadly this spring that the U.S. trade and current-account deficits amount to a long-running national problem and that Congress has recognized those imbalances for decades. In other words, the administration is trying to connect today’s goods-trade deficit to the kind of international-payments problem Section 122 was meant to address. That is the appeal in a nutshell. (usnews.com) ### Did the court kill the tariff nationwide? No — and this is the catch. The ruling gave relief only to the plaintiffs with standing: Washington state, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, and toy company Basic Fun! For almost everyone else, the tariff stays in place for now while the appeal moves forward. So this was a legal loss for the administration, but not yet a systemwide shutdown of the tariff. (aol.com) ### Why does that limited relief matter? Because it changes the real-world stakes. Importers outside the case are still paying the duty, which means prices and supply-chain decisions do not suddenly reset. But the opinion also gives other companies a roadmap. If the appeal drags on, more businesses could sue for the same relief and start building pressure around refunds. (politico.com) ### What happens next? The appeal goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile, the Section 122 tariff was always temporary and is due to expire on July 24 unless Congress extends it. The administration is also working on broader tariffs through Section 301 investigations, which rest on a different legal foundation and are due later in July. Basically, even if this specific 10% tariff dies, the wider tariff project does not. (politico.com) ### Bottom line Greer is defending more than one tariff. He is defending the administration’s idea that if one legal door closes, another can keep the same trade strategy alive. The court just said no to Door No. 2. Now the appeal will decide whether that “no” sticks. (usnews.com)