Tariff fight moves to court
The U.S. Court of International Trade heard arguments challenging President Trump’s 10% global tariffs, with judges questioning the legal basis for the measure. Coverage notes judges pressed whether the administration’s rationale meets statutory requirements as the dispute moves through the courts. (chicagotribune.com) (businesstimes.com.sg)
A federal trade court is now testing whether President Donald Trump had legal authority to impose a 10% tariff on most imports. (reuters.com) (apnews.com) The three-judge panel at the United States Court of International Trade heard arguments in New York on Friday, April 10, in lawsuits brought by 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses. The tariff took effect on February 24. (businesstimes.com.sg) (reuters.com) (bloomberg.com) Judges pressed the administration on whether a large trade deficit qualifies as the kind of “fundamental international payments problem” required by Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Government lawyers argued the statute lets a president impose a temporary import surcharge of as much as 15% for up to 150 days without new approval from Congress. (law.cornell.edu) (whitehouse.gov) (reuters.com) This case exists because the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s earlier, broader tariff program on February 20, 2026. In that 6-3 ruling, the court said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize tariffs. (supremecourt.gov) (congress.gov) (politico.com) After that loss, Trump switched to Section 122, a trade law written for balance-of-payments problems, not national emergencies. His February 24 proclamation said the United States faced “fundamental international payments problems” and ordered the 10% surcharge as a temporary measure. (whitehouse.gov) (federalregister.gov) The challengers told the court that Section 122 was never meant to cover a long-running trade deficit and cannot be used as a substitute for the emergency-powers tariffs the Supreme Court rejected. Reuters reported judges also questioned the plaintiffs on whether the states and businesses had shown the kind of immediate injury needed for relief. (reuters.com) (abcnews.go.com) The administration said Section 122 gives the president broad discretion to respond quickly when imports threaten the nation’s external accounts. White House materials described the tariff as part of a push to rebalance trade in favor of American workers, farmers and manufacturers. (whitehouse.gov) (nbcnews.com) The court did not rule from the bench on April 10. Its eventual decision will determine whether Trump’s backup tariff survives long enough to reach the 150-day limit Congress wrote into the law. (apnews.com) (law.cornell.edu)
