Trump tariffs struck down by court

Tariffs are back in court again — and Trump just lost another round. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade said his 10% global import tariff was unlawful, knocking out the legal theory behind the White House’s replacement plan after the Supreme Court had already killed his broader tariff push in February. But this was not a clean nationwide shutdown. The judges blocked collection only for the specific plaintiffs in the case, so most importers are still stuck paying while the appeal starts. ### What tariff did the court strike down? This was Trump’s “Plan B” tariff — a flat 10% surcharge on nearly all imports that he announced on February 20, 2026, the same day the Supreme Court struck down his earlier worldwide tariffs imposed under emergency powers. The replacement tariff leaned on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a narrower law that lets a president impose temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for as long as 150 days. (politico.com) ### Why did the judges say no? Basically, the court said Trump used the wrong legal tool for the wrong economic problem. Section 122 is supposed to address serious U.S. balance-of-payments deficits — an old-school international payments problem. Trump’s proclamation pointed instead to trade deficits, current-account issues, and the country’s net international investment position. The majority said those are not the same thing under the statute Congress wrote in 1974. (dorsey.com) ### Who actually won the case? Not everyone. The ruling came in consolidated cases brought by Washington state and two companies — Burlap & Barrel, a spice importer, and Basic Fun!, a toy company. The court said those plaintiffs had standing, and it permanently barred the government from collecting the tariff from them. But it refused to issue universal relief for every importer in the country. (dorsey.com) ### So are the tariffs gone? For most businesses, no — not yet. That is the catch. The opinion says the tariff proclamation is invalid, but the practical relief is narrow, and the administration has already appealed. Trade lawyers expect the fight to move to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which means the tariff can keep hanging over supply chains even after this loss. (politico.com) ### Why was Section 122 such a big deal? Because it was the fallback weapon. After the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act earlier this year, Trump’s team tried to rebuild a global tariff wall with an older statute that looked more limited and maybe more defensible. Turns out the court was not buying that either. This is now the second major legal hit to the administration’s attempt to impose broad tariffs without a more specific act of Congress. (politico.com) ### Does this affect all of Trump’s tariffs? No. That matters. The May 7 ruling targets the Section 122 10% global tariff, not every trade duty on the books. Analyses of the decision note that other tariff programs — including Section 232 tariffs on products like steel, aluminum, and autos, and Section 301 tariffs — were not touched by this case. (politico.com) ### Why does this matter beyond one lawsuit? Because it weakens the White House’s leverage and makes tariff policy look less durable. A global tariff is useful in negotiations only if other countries believe it will survive court review and stay in place. Right now, that assumption looks shaky. Importers are also staring at a messy next phase — more lawsuits, possible refund claims, and months of uncertainty over what duties are actually collectible. (thompsoncoburn.com) ### Bottom line? The court did not just trim one tariff. It told Trump that his backup legal route looks unlawful too. But because the ruling is narrow and already on appeal, the real-world result is a weird half-step — the policy is wounded, not fully dead. (politico.com) (usnews.com)