Trump faces tariff legal squeeze

Tariffs are back in court again — and this time the problem is not the rate, but the legal hook. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade said President Trump could not use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to slap a 10% surcharge on most imports. The Justice Department appealed the next day, so the fight is moving fast. But the bigger point is simple: Trump’s fallback tariff plan is now under the same kind of legal stress that killed his first one. ### What exactly got struck down? This was Trump’s “Plan B” tariff. After the Supreme Court rejected his earlier emergency tariffs under IEEPA on February 20, 2026, the White House turned the same day to Section 122 — a dusty trade-law provision that lets a president impose a temporary import surcharge. Trump used it to order a 10% global tariff on imports, with a few carveouts, starting February 24. (politico.com) ### Why did the trade court say no? Because Section 122 is much narrower than the administration wanted it to be. The statute is about “balance-of-payments” problems — basically, currency and international payments stress — not just the fact that the U.S. buys more goods than it sells. The trade court’s majority said the administration tried to treat trade deficits and current-account deficits as if they were the same thing. The judges said that move went beyond what Congress authorized. (congress.gov) ### Was this a total shutdown of the tariffs? Not quite. The ruling was a big loss, but the relief was limited. The court granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction for the successful plaintiffs — Washington state, Burlap & Barrel, and Basic Fun! — and did not issue a universal nationwide block for everyone else. So the tariffs do not instantly vanish across the whole economy while the appeal plays out. That partial-relief piece is why businesses are still sorting out whether they need their own cases or refund claims. (cit.uscourts.gov) ### Why does July matter so much? Section 122 was never a long-term tariff machine. The law allows a surcharge of up to 15%, but only for 150 days unless Congress extends it. Since Trump’s proclamation was issued on February 20, that window runs to July 24, 2026. So even if the administration had cleaner legal footing, this tool was always temporary. The court loss just makes the clock much louder. (cit.uscourts.gov) ### What can Trump do instead? The obvious move is to lean harder on slower, more tailored trade laws. Section 232 covers imports tied to national-security findings. Section 301 covers unfair foreign trade practices, but it usually needs an investigation and a record. Congress’s own research arm flagged both as the likely next options if Section 122 could only buy time. Basically, the White House can still pursue tariffs — but the broad, fast version keeps running into judges. (uscode.house.gov) ### Does this mean tariffs are over? Probably not. It means the administration’s easiest legal routes keep failing. Courts are saying presidents do not get a blank check to redesign U.S. trade policy with emergency or stopgap powers that were written for narrower problems. That does not kill tariffs as a policy. It pushes them into more cumbersome channels, with more procedure, more factual findings, and more chances for industries and states to fight back. (congress.gov) ### So what is the real squeeze? It is a squeeze of time, law, and design. The administration wants broad tariffs now. The courts keep saying the statutes on hand do not support that kind of shortcut. And the one backup law Trump picked expires in July anyway. So even if the appeal buys breathing room, the White House is being forced away from one-size-fits-all tariffs and toward narrower measures that are slower to build and easier to challenge piece by piece. (money.usnews.com) ### Bottom line Trump still has tariff options. But the legal system is stripping away the fast ones. What is left looks less like a universal trade wall and more like a patchwork built case by case. (congress.gov) (polsinelli.com)