Court weighs 10% global tariff

A court in New York spent Friday testing whether the White House found a real legal back door for a 10% tariff on imports from almost every country after the Supreme Court shut down its earlier tariff plan on February 20, 2026. The case is in the United States Court of International Trade, and the challengers include states and small businesses. (reuters.com) (carolinajournal.com) The earlier fight was about the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law presidents use for sanctions and other emergency controls. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court said that law does not let a president impose tariffs, and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 6-3 majority. (congress.gov) (sidley.com) Within hours of that loss, the administration switched to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law lets a president put on a temporary import surcharge of as much as 15% for up to 150 days if the government says the United States has a “large and serious” balance-of-payments problem. (whitehouse.gov) (law.cornell.edu) Customs and Border Protection told importers on February 23 that the new surcharge was 10% and applied to imported goods from every country unless specifically exempt. That turned a Supreme Court defeat in Washington into a pricing problem at ports and warehouses three days later. (content.govdelivery.com) (hklaw.com) The legal question now is narrower and harder. Nobody is arguing that Section 122 exists; the fight is over whether the administration actually met the trigger Congress wrote into it, which is a genuine balance-of-payments emergency rather than a general dislike of trade deficits. (politico.com) (law.cornell.edu) The states say the White House is trying to re-create the same global tariff system under a different label. Oregon is leading one case, Burlap and Barrel is leading a related business suit, and both are asking the trade court to strike the tariffs and order refunds. (carolinajournal.com) (aljazeera.com) The administration’s best argument is that Section 122 was written for temporary import surcharges and gives the president room to judge when the payments problem is serious enough. Its weaker fact is that no president had used Section 122 this way before February 2026, so the court has almost no modern practice to lean on. (whitehouse.gov) (thompsonhinesmartrade.com) The business stakes are messy because tariffs are collected at the border before courts finish sorting out who was right. Trade lawyers say importers may be entitled to refunds if the tariff falls, but the reimbursement process after the February 20 Supreme Court ruling was already described as complex and unsettled. (hklaw.com) (ropesgray.com) Section 122 also comes with a built-in clock. The statute caps the surcharge at 150 days unless Congress extends it, and President Trump has said he wants to raise the rate from 10% to 15%, which is the maximum the law allows. (law.cornell.edu) (politico.com) That leaves companies planning around three moving targets at once: the current 10% charge, the risk of a court order wiping it out, and the possibility of a later 15% rate or country-by-country tariffs under other trade laws. For importers, that means contracts, shelf prices, and supplier terms are being written with one eye on a loading dock and the other on a three-judge panel in Manhattan. (reuters.com) (hklaw.com)