Court challenges Trump tariffs
Oregon and other states have filed a new federal case challenging the administration’s 10% global tariffs, asking for a fast ruling on legality. Judges in a separate U.S. trade court have also questioned whether a routine trade deficit can legally justify the tariff under a 1974 statute (opb.org) (indiatoday.in). The litigation is active and being argued in multiple forums this week (businesstimes.com.sg).
President Donald Trump’s new 10 percent tariff on most imports is facing fresh legal attacks in two federal courts. (apnews.com) On April 10, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade in New York heard challenges brought by 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses. The tariff took effect on February 24 after Trump switched to a different trade law. (usnews.com) A separate case was argued April 11 in federal district court in Washington, where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said states want a quick ruling on whether the tariff is legal. Associated Press reported that two dozen states joined that suit. (opb.org) The dispute turns on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used law that lets a president impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 percent for 150 days. Any extension beyond that window requires an act of Congress. (law.cornell.edu) Trump moved to Section 122 after the Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs. The White House then issued a February 24 order imposing the 10 percent surcharge and said Section 122 addressed “fundamental international payments problems.” (supremecourt.gov) (whitehouse.gov) At the trade court hearing, judges pressed government lawyers on whether a long-running trade deficit counts as the kind of emergency Congress had in mind in 1974. Reuters reported that the panel questioned whether a routine deficit alone could justify a broad tariff on nearly all imports. (businesstimes.com.sg) (indiatoday.in) Lawyers for the states and businesses argued that Section 122 was written for balance-of-payments stress tied to the dollar and international monetary conditions, not for a standing goods trade gap. Government lawyers argued that the statute gives the president broad discretion to respond to international payments problems. (politico.com) (whitehouse.gov) The current tariff is narrower than the earlier Trump tariffs the Supreme Court blocked because it is capped at 15 percent and expires after 150 days unless Congress acts. Associated Press reported that the current 10 percent surcharge is scheduled to end on July 24 if lawmakers do nothing. (opb.org) The cases do not cover every Trump trade measure. Reuters reported that tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper imposed under other legal authorities are not part of these lawsuits. (yahoo.com) The next step is a ruling from judges weighing whether Section 122 lets a president use a temporary tariff as a global fix for the trade gap. For now, the 10 percent import tax remains in place while the court fight moves on. (apnews.com)
