U.S. Court of International Trade hears legal challenges to the administration's new tariffs

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade heard arguments on April 10 over President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs. (nbcnews.com) (politico.com) The two consolidated cases are Oregon v. Trump, brought by 24 states led by Oregon, and Burlap & Barrel v. Trump, brought by small businesses that import goods. The tariffs have applied to most imports since February 24. (doj.state.or.us) (freightfigures.com) Trump imposed the duties on February 20 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, four days after the Supreme Court struck down his broader tariff program under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Section 122 lets a president impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days without new approval from Congress. (nbcnews.com) (politico.com) The legal fight turned on a narrow phrase in that law: “balance-of-payments.” Plaintiffs told the court that Section 122 was written for currency and reserve crises, not for the long-running U.S. trade deficit Trump cited in his proclamation. (politico.com) (doj.state.or.us) Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly, and Timothy Stanceu pressed both sides on how to read a 1974 statute built for a very different monetary system. Stanceu said from the bench, “We’re not quite sure how to translate 1974 into 2026.” (carolinajournal.com) (politico.com) The administration argued that the current-account deficit is the relevant measure and said the United States now runs a deficit of more than $1.1 trillion. Opponents said that reading would turn a temporary emergency tool into a standing tariff power. (ntu.org) (politico.com) The tariffs are scheduled to expire on July 24 unless Congress extends them, but the White House has said it sees them as a bridge to other tariff authorities that could support longer-lasting duties. The judges did not say when they would rule. (nbcnews.com) (politico.com) The case lands after a bigger defeat for the administration in February, when the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s use of the 1977 emergency-powers law to impose sweeping tariffs. That ruling forced the White House onto a different statute and put Section 122, a law never previously used this way, at the center of U.S. trade policy. (nbcnews.com) (ag.ny.gov)) For importers, the immediate question is whether the court lets the 10% levy stay in place through the summer. For the administration, the case is a test of how far a president can go in resetting tariff policy after the Supreme Court closed off the faster emergency route. (freightfigures.com) (politico.com)