Justice Department appeals ruling that struck down Trump’s 10% global tariff

Tariffs are back in court again — and this time the fight is over Trump’s fallback plan, not his first one. On Friday, May 8, the Justice Department appealed a ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that said Trump’s 10% across-the-board import tariff was illegal. That tariff was the White House’s replacement after the Supreme Court killed an earlier, broader round in February. So the basic story is simple: Trump lost his backup tariff too, and now the administration is trying to keep the whole strategy alive through appeal. ### What got appealed? A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 on May 7 that Trump unlawfully used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to slap a 10% tariff on imports from almost every country. The administration filed its notice of appeal the next day, sending the case toward the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. ### Why did the trade court say no? Section 122 is a narrow statute. It lets a president use temporary trade measures to deal with serious balance-of-payments problems — basically, a crisis tied to money flowing out of the country in a way the law specifically contemplates. The trade court said the administration stretched that language way too far. The judges said a broad global tariff aimed at trade deficits was not what Congress authorized under that section. ### Is the tariff gone right now? Not for everyone. That is the catch. The ruling gave relief only to the plaintiffs in the case — two importers and Washington state — rather than instantly wiping out the tariff nationwide. So for most importers, the 10% duty remains in place while the appeal moves forward. That limited scope is why businesses are watching the next steps so closely. ### Who brought the case? The challengers included Washington state and a small group of businesses that import consumer goods. Their argument was straightforward: the White House was trying to do with Section 122 what it could no longer do under the emergency powers theory the Supreme Court had already rejected. The trade court mostly agreed. ### Why does Section 122 matter so much? Because it was Trump’s legal Plan B. After the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s earlier “Liberation Day” tariff regime in February, the White House pivoted to an older and narrower trade law. Section 122 also has built-in limits — including a 150-day cap — which meant this 10% tariff was already set to expire on July 24 unless something else replaced it. ### Why are businesses talking about refunds? Because if the courts eventually say the tariff was unlawful more broadly, importers will argue they paid money the government had no right to collect. That could mean very large refund claims, potentially with interest. Right now that outcome is not locked in — the ruling is still narrow and the appeal could reverse it — but the financial exposure is real enough that companies are already gaming it out. ### Does this change Trump’s trade agenda? Yes, but not cleanly. Trump can still threaten tariffs, negotiate around them, and look for other legal hooks. But every court loss makes the main point harder to ignore — Congress wrote these tariff laws with limits, and judges are showing they plan to enforce them. That turns trade policy into a legal endurance test as much as an economic one. ### Bottom line The appeal keeps Trump’s 10% global tariff alive for now, but it also keeps the administration trapped in the same problem: the courts keep saying the law is narrower than Trump wants it to be. If the government loses again, the damage will not just be political. It could come with a very large bill.