Trade court reviews 10% tariff
A U.S. trade court is weighing the legality of President Trump’s 10% global import tax after states and small businesses argued it sidesteps a Supreme Court ruling. The hearing underscores legal uncertainty around the administration’s tariff architecture even as officials signal readiness to use tariffs as a foreign-policy tool (ctvnews.ca).
A three-judge trade court panel heard arguments on April 10 over President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on nearly all imports, a tax that took effect on February 24. (reuters.com) The cases were brought by 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Manhattan-based court that handles customs and trade disputes. The administration says the tariff is a lawful response to the United States importing more goods than it exports. (reuters.com) (uscourts.gov) Trump imposed the tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that lets a president add duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits or a threatened dollar slide. The White House proclamation was signed on February 20, and Customs and Border Protection said the 10% duty began at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on February 24. (whitehouse.gov) (federalregister.gov) (content.govdelivery.com) The dispute turns on what “balance of payments” means. The states and businesses argue Section 122 was written for short-term currency and international payments emergencies, not for the routine U.S. trade gap that presidents of both parties have lived with for decades. (reuters.com) The hearing came seven weeks after the Supreme Court, in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, ruled 6-3 on February 20 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let a president impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. (supremecourt.gov) (congress.gov) That ruling wiped out the broader tariff system Trump had built under emergency powers. Within hours, the White House replaced much of it with the new Section 122 tariff, using a narrower law that caps the rate at 15% and the duration at 150 days unless Congress acts. (whitehouse.gov) (cnbc.com) The earlier court fight helps explain the new one. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the earlier emergency-law tariffs were unlawful, and on March 2, 2026, it ordered its mandate to issue immediately after the Supreme Court loss. (cafc.uscourts.gov 1) (cafc.uscourts.gov 2) The new lawsuits do not target every Trump tariff. Reuters reported that they leave in place other import taxes imposed under more established statutes, including tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper. (reuters.com) No ruling came from the bench on April 10. The next question is whether the trade court accepts the administration’s reading of a little-used 1974 law, or decides that the 10% tariff repeats the same end run in a different legal wrapper. (reuters.com)
