Court challenges 10% tariffs
A federal trade court on Friday heard a state-led challenge to President Trump’s new 10% global tariffs, with Oregon and other plaintiffs arguing the White House misused a 1974 law meant for balance-of-payments emergencies. State lawyers told judges there is no balance-of-payments crisis and pointed to the depth and liquidity of the U.S. Treasury market while judges reportedly pressed whether an ordinary trade deficit can justify emergency tariffs. Businesses are already responding to the uncertainty: an import outlook named the tariffs the most immediate constraint on U.S. import demand, with rising fuel prices adding a second squeeze on retailers and shippers. ( )
A federal trade court spent more than three hours on April 11 weighing whether President Donald Trump can keep his new 10% global tariffs in place. (opb.org) The case is in the United States Court of International Trade in New York, where Oregon and 23 other states, joined by businesses, are trying to block tariffs Trump imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. (opb.org) Trump turned to that law after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier tariffs on February 20, 2026, ruling 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize broad import taxes. Four days later, he announced the replacement 10% tariff. (opb.org) Section 122 is a short-term power, not a blank check. The statute lets a president impose a tariff of up to 15% for no more than 150 days unless Congress extends it. (law.cornell.edu) The legal fight is about what kind of emergency that 1974 law was written for. The text says the president may act when “fundamental international payments problems” require import restrictions, including “large and serious” United States balance-of-payments deficits or a threatened drop in the dollar. (law.cornell.edu) State lawyers told the judges that the United States does not face that kind of payments crisis now, and the panel pressed both sides on whether an ordinary trade deficit is enough to trigger the law. Judge Timothy Stanceu said, “We’re not quite sure how to translate 1974 into 2026.” (politico.com, opb.org) The administration says the tariffs are needed to reduce longstanding trade deficits, and Trump has said he may lift the rate to 15%, the maximum allowed under Section 122. The current tariffs are scheduled to expire on July 24 unless Congress acts. (opb.org, opb.org) Lawyers watching the case split on the likely outcome. Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents some plaintiffs, said the judges asked “tough questions of all sides,” while former trade official Ryan Majerus said he would be “stunned” if the challengers win. (opb.org) Outside the courtroom, importers are already adjusting. A new Global Port Tracker outlook released April 12 said tariffs are now the most immediate constraint on United States import demand, while higher bunker fuel and gasoline prices are adding pressure on shippers, retailers and consumers. (globaltrademag.com) The same report said major United States ports handled 1.95 million twenty-foot equivalent units in February, down 7.5% from January and 4.2% from a year earlier. The court has not said when it will rule, but the calendar is already closing in on the tariffs’ July end date. (globaltrademag.com, politico.com)
