Federal trade court strikes down Trump's 10% global import tariff
- President Donald Trump’s fallback 10% tariff on most imports was struck down May 7 by the U.S. Court of International Trade. - The 2-1 ruling said Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act did not justify the levy, and relief went only to Washington, Basic Fun!, and Burlap & Barrel. - That leaves the tariff alive for almost everyone else during appeal — but weakens Trump’s legal leverage in broader trade fights.
Tariffs are back in court again — and Trump just lost again. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that his 10% across-the-board import tariff was unlawful, knocking out the legal backup plan the White House built after the Supreme Court already rejected an earlier round of sweeping tariffs. But this is not a clean nationwide shutdown. The court blocked the tariff only for Washington state and two importers that sued, so for most businesses the tax still keeps running while the appeal starts. ### What tariff did the court strike down? This was Trump’s February 2026 “Plan B” tariff — a 10% duty on most imports. It came right after the Supreme Court threw out his earlier “Liberation Day” tariffs, which had relied on emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The replacement tariff used a different statute instead: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. (politico.com) ### Why did the administration think Section 122 worked? Section 122 is a narrow tool. It lets a president impose temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for no more than 150 days when the U.S. is dealing with “large and serious” balance-of-payments problems. Basically, it was designed for a specific kind of international payments crisis, not as a general-purpose weapon for reshaping global trade. Trump’s team tried to route the same broad tariff idea through that narrower pipe. (politico.com) The court said that pipe was the wrong one. ### What did the judges actually say? The panel split 2-1. Judges Mark Barnett and Claire Kelly formed the majority, and Judge Timothy Stanceu dissented. The majority said Trump’s February proclamation was invalid and that the tariffs imposed on the plaintiffs were unauthorized by law. The key point was simple: the administration had not shown the kind of balance-of-payments deficit Section 122 is meant to address. In other words, the law and the policy did not match. (politico.com) ### Who actually gets relief right now? Only three plaintiffs: Washington state, toy company Basic Fun!, and spice importer Burlap & Barrel. The court said the administration has to stop collecting the tariff from them and refund what they paid, with interest. But the broader coalition of 24 Democratic-led states did not get a universal injunction, so everyone else is still stuck paying unless they win their own relief or the ruling gets widened on appeal. (politico.com) That narrow scope is the catch. ### Why is the ruling so narrow? Because standing matters. The court found that Washington and the two companies had shown direct harm clearly enough to justify an injunction tailored to them. That sounds technical, but it matters a lot. A decision can say a policy is unlawful and still stop short of turning it off for the whole country. That is basically what happened here. (politico.com) ### Does the tariff disappear now? Not for most importers. The Justice Department moved quickly to appeal, and the next stop is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Reuters noted the duties are expected to expire in July anyway, because Section 122 only allows temporary tariffs. So the practical fight now is about refunds, legal precedent, and whether the White House can keep using broad tariff moves without Congress. (politico.com) ### Why does this matter beyond these three plaintiffs? Because it is the second straight court hit to the same strategy. First the Supreme Court rejected the emergency-powers route. Now the trade court has rejected the fallback route. That does not end Trump’s trade agenda — the administration can still try other statutes after investigations — but it makes clear that courts are not buying the idea that old trade laws let a president slap a near-universal tariff on imports whenever he wants. (usnews.com) ### Bottom line The headline is bigger than the immediate effect. Trump’s 10% global tariff was ruled unlawful, but only a few plaintiffs are free of it for now. The real significance is that another court has signaled the same thing — sweeping tariffs need a real legal foundation, not just a new label. (politico.com) (cbsnews.com)
