U.S. trade court strikes down administration's 10% global‑tariffs plan

A federal trade court just knocked down the administration’s backup tariff plan. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 7 that President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on nearly all imports was unlawful, and the Justice Department appealed almost immediately. ### What was this tariff, exactly? This was the White House’s Plan B. After the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s broader “Liberation Day” tariffs in February 2026, the administration switched to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and imposed a temporary 10% duty on most imports. The idea was simple — keep a broad global tariff in place, just under a different legal theory. (abcnews.com) ### Why did the court say no? The majority said Section 122 is narrower than the administration claimed. That law lets a president use temporary trade restrictions to deal with balance-of-payments problems, but the judges said today’s trade deficits are not the same thing. In plain English, the court decided the White House was trying to stretch an old statute far beyond what Congress allowed. (cbsnews.com) ### Was the ruling unanimous? No — it was 2-1. That matters because it shows there is a real legal fight here, not just a procedural speed bump. One judge would have given the president more room to use the statute. But the majority called the tariffs invalid and unauthorized by law, which is about as direct as these opinions get. (forvismazars.us) ### Did the court kill the tariff for everyone? Not yet. This is the catch. The injunction, at least for now, blocks the tariffs for Washington state and two private importers that were part of the case. So the ruling is a major legal blow, but not an instant nationwide wipeout while the appeal plays out. That narrower remedy is why businesses are still dealing with uncertainty instead of getting a clean reset. (usnews.com) ### Why is Section 122 such a big deal? Because it was the administration’s fallback after losing the bigger case. The Supreme Court had already taken away the much broader emergency-powers route under IEEPA. If Section 122 had survived, the White House would still have had a way to keep a near-universal tariff in place while looking for other tools. Now that route looks shaky too. (usnews.com) ### So what happens next? The administration has already appealed, and it says it expects to win. That means this fight is moving up the ladder, and businesses still do not know whether these duties will stick, disappear, or get replaced by something narrower. The bigger issue is executive power — how far a president can go on tariffs without a new vote from Congress. (nbcnews.com) ### Why should anyone outside trade law care? Because a blanket 10% tariff is basically a tax on imported goods, parts, and inputs across the economy. Even if the legal fight sounds technical, the practical question is simple: can the White House impose a broad import tax on its own? This ruling says probably not under this law either. ### Bottom line (msn.com) The court did not just reject one tariff rate. It hit the administration’s second attempt to build a worldwide tariff wall without Congress. The appeal could change the outcome, but for now the message is clear — the president’s tariff toolbox is smaller than the White House wanted. (abcnews.com) (nytimes.com)