White House asks court to freeze judge’s order that would block China tariffs

Tariffs are back in court again — and the immediate question is simple. Does the government have to stop collecting Trump’s 10% global import levy now, or can it keep charging businesses while the appeal plays out? On May 11, the White House asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to freeze its own May 7 ruling that said those tariffs were unlawful. The administration wants the duties to stay in place during the appeal. If the court says yes, importers keep paying for now. If the court says no, at least some of those charges stop and refunds become a live issue fast. ### What changed this week? A three-judge panel at the trade court ruled on May 7 that Trump’s February 24 tariffs went beyond what Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows. That law lets a president respond to balance-of-payments problems, but only in a narrow, temporary way. The court said the administration’s 10% across-the-board tariff did not fit the statute the way the White House claimed. ### Was the tariff blocked for everyone? Not exactly — and this is the part that makes the story confusing. The ruling was narrow. The court sided with the plaintiffs in the cases before it, including Washington state and two importers, rather than instantly wiping the tariff off the books for every company in America. So the legal logic cuts against the tariff broadly, but the practical effect is still being fought over in real time. ### Why is the White House asking for a freeze? Because without a stay, the court’s order starts biting before the appeal is decided. The administration’s argument is basically this: if tariff collection stops now, the government could lose revenue, customs administration gets messy, and restarting the system later would be harder. The White House also says it is likely to win on appeal, which is the standard pitch when a losing side asks a court to hit pause. ### Why does China show up in the headline? Because this is part of the broader Trump tariff campaign against China and other trading partners, even though the specific levy here is the 10% global tariff. This was the administration’s backup plan after the Supreme Court knocked out an earlier, broader tariff program built on emergency-powers law. In other words, the White House lost one tariff tool, then reached for an older and narrower one. ### What is Section 122, in plain English? It is an old trade-law provision meant for short-term pressure when the U.S. is dealing with serious international payments problems. Think of it as a limited emergency valve, not a blank check for a standing global tariff. That is why this case matters beyond one 10% levy — it tests how far a president can stretch old trade statutes after courts reject the bigger ones. ### Who feels this first? Importers, retailers, and manufacturers. A 10% tariff lands first on the company bringing goods into the country, but the cost rarely stays there. Some firms eat the hit in margins. Some push it into prices. Some delay orders because they do not know whether the tariff will still exist by the time shipments arrive. ### What happens next? The trade court decides whether to grant the stay. Then the appeal moves forward, likely quickly. The bigger issue is not just this one filing. It is whether Trump’s second-shot tariff strategy survives judicial review after the first one already failed. ### Bottom line? This is a fight over who controls trade policy when Congress wrote an old law loosely enough for a president to try squeezing a modern tariff regime through it. For businesses, the practical answer is harsher and simpler — the legal theory is unsettled, but the bills may keep arriving anyway.