US trade court strikes down tariffs

Tariffs are back in court again — and this time the fight is over Trump’s fallback plan, not the original sweep of import taxes the Supreme Court already knocked out in February. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that Trump’s newer 10% global tariff was unlawful under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. But the practical effect is narrower than the headline sounds. The court blocked the levy for the plaintiffs in the case, not for every importer in America, while the administration appeals. ### What exactly did the court strike down? This was Trump’s across-the-board 10% tariff on imports from nearly every country, announced on February 20, 2026, just hours after the Supreme Court struck down a bigger chunk of his earlier tariff program. The new version leaned on Section 122 — an old statute that lets a president temporarily restrict imports in a balance-of-payments emergency. The trade court said that law does not give the White House open-ended power to slap a blanket duty on almost everything coming into the country. (usnews.com) ### Why did Section 122 matter so much? Because it was the backup key. After the Supreme Court said the earlier tariff regime went beyond presidential power, the administration needed another legal hook fast. Section 122 looked useful because it allows temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. But the catch is that Congress wrote it for a specific problem — a serious U.S. balance-of-payments deficit tied to international monetary pressures, not a general complaint about trade imbalances or industrial policy. (cnbc.com) The judges said Trump hadn’t shown that kind of crisis. ### So did the tariffs end immediately? Not for everyone. This is the part people miss. The court’s order, at least for now, protects the State of Washington and the two private importers that sued. Reuters said the tariffs remain in place for other importers while the appeal plays out. So the legal theory took a hit, but customs collection does not instantly vanish across the whole economy. That means businesses still have to plan around a policy that is wounded, not dead. (cnbc.com) ### Why was Washington state involved? Because states feel tariffs in very concrete ways. Washington imports heavily through its ports and has major retail, agriculture, and manufacturing exposure. A blanket 10% duty does not stay neatly at the border — it moves into inventory costs, supplier contracts, and pricing decisions. That is why these cases are not just abstract separation-of-powers fights. They are also about who eats the extra cost while the lawyers argue. (usnews.com) ### Does this mean prices are safe now? Probably not safe — just less certain. A universal 10% tariff is the kind of policy that can push up prices on a huge range of imported goods, but only if it sticks long enough and broadly enough to work through supply chains. This ruling makes that harder. Still, other tariff tools remain available, including narrower product-based authorities that the Supreme Court did not wipe out. So the risk shifts from one big blunt tax to a messier patchwork. (politico.com) ### Why does the appeal matter so much? Because the administration is not giving up on tariffs as policy. Bloomberg and Politico both framed this ruling as another blow to a central part of Trump’s economic agenda, not the end of it. If the government wins on appeal, the 10% tariff could come back with more force. If it loses, the White House will likely keep hunting for narrower statutes that courts have not closed off yet. (cnbc.com) ### What’s the real bottom line? The court did not just reject one tariff. It rejected the idea that the president can use a rarely invoked 1970s law as a catch-all replacement for broader tariff powers he already lost. That matters for shoppers and retailers, but even more for the bigger constitutional fight — who gets to tax imports, and how far a president can go without Congress. (usnews.com) (bloomberg.com)