Washington wins tariffs lawsuit

Tariffs are back in court again — and this time Washington state actually won. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade said President Donald Trump could not use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose his newer 10% global tariff. That matters because this was the administration’s backup plan after the Supreme Court had already knocked out an earlier, broader tariff regime. The catch is that the court’s order does not wipe the tariff away for everyone. It protects Washington and two private companies that sued. (atg.wa.gov) ### What did the court actually do? A divided three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Trump’s February tariff proclamation was unlawful and that the tariffs imposed on the winning plaintiffs were unauthorized. The majority said Section 122 has specific conditions, and the administration did not meet them. Judge Timothy Stanceu dissented, but Judges Mark Barnett and Claire Kelly carried the ruling. (politico.com) ### Why did Washington win when other states didn’t? Standing — basically, the court wanted a plaintiff that could show a direct, concrete injury. Washington cleared that bar because the state itself acts as an importer and pays tariff bills. The other 23 states in the coalition did not, so their cl(politico.com)e duties. (atg.wa.gov) ### What is Section 122, and why was it the fight? Section 122 is an old part of the 1974 trade law that lets a president impose temporary import surcharges — up to 15% for no more than 150 days — if the U.S. faces serious balance-of-payments problems. Trump turned to it after the Supreme Court rejected(atg.wa.gov)ayments crisis Section 122 was written for. That distinction is the whole case. (atg.wa.gov) ### Why does that legal distinction matter so much? Because tariffs are taxes on imports, and the Constitution gives Congress the core power over them. Presidents can act only when Congress has clearly handed over limited authority. The judges’ basic point was simple — the president does not have some free-floating, inherent tariff power. If the statute does not fit, the tariff falls. (atg.wa.gov) ### Does this kill the tariff for everyone? Not yet. The ruling bars collection from Washington and the two company plaintiffs, but it does not grant nationwide relief to every importer still paying the 10% duty. So for most businesses, the tariff can remain in place while appeals play out. But the opinion is still a big deal because it gives other importers a tested legal theory to use in their own challenges. (politico.com) ### What happens next? An appeal is the obvious next move, and the case would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That means more uncertainty for companies trying to plan sourcing, prices, and inventory around the assumption that these tariffs will stick. A tariff can look permanent right up until a court says the legal plumbing underneath it was wrong. (politico.com) ### Why should businesses care beyond Washington? Because this ruling turns one state’s win into a template. If you are a direct importer, the court just showed what kind of plaintiff can get in the door and what argument can work. That does not guarantee refunds or a broad rollback. But it does make Trump’s replacement tariff strategy look much less stable than it did a week ago. (atg.wa.gov) ### Bottom line? Washington did not blow up the whole tariff system in one shot. But it did crack the legal foundation under Trump’s fallback 10% global tariff — and for importers, that may be the part that matters most.