U.S. court questions global tariff legality

A federal trade court spent hours pressing both sides on whether President Donald Trump could legally impose a 10% tariff on imports from nearly every country. (opb.org) The case was argued Friday, April 10, in the United States Court of International Trade in New York, with Oregon leading a coalition of 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses challenging the policy. (reuters.com) The tariffs took effect on February 24 after the Supreme Court, on February 20, struck down Trump’s broader tariff program under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The White House then switched to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary global tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. (opb.org) Section 122 was written for a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit, a problem that usually means a country is running short of foreign currency and cannot pay its bills abroad. Judges asked whether the United States’ long-running trade deficit fits that older definition. (politico.com) Judge Gary Katzmann asked government lawyer Eric Hamilton whether the administration’s theory would let any president use Section 122 whenever the United States imports more than it exports. Judge Timothy Reif also questioned whether Congress meant the law to cover a routine trade gap in a country with a floating currency and deep capital markets. (opb.org) The administration argued that courts should defer to the president on economic policy and said the law does not require a sudden crisis. Hamilton told the panel the trade deficit itself can qualify, even if the United States has run one for decades. (chicagotribune.com) The states and businesses said that reading would turn a narrow emergency tool into a standing power to tax imports worldwide. They argued Congress gave presidents only a short-term stopgap, not a way around the Supreme Court’s February ruling. (pbs.org) The 150-day limit is central to the fight. Section 122 lets a president act quickly, but any extension beyond that window requires congressional approval, which means the current tariffs would expire this summer unless lawmakers step in. (usnews.com) No ruling came from the bench Friday, and the judges gave no timetable for a decision. For now, the 10% tariffs remain in place while the court decides whether Trump’s fallback legal theory can survive where his first one failed. (reuters.com)