Trump 10% tariff faces court

A three-judge panel in New York is hearing a case on April 10 over President Donald Trump’s new 10% tariff on imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner, and the fight is not over steel or cars or one country at a time. It is over whether the White House can keep reaching for a different law every time a court knocks down the last tariff plan. (usnews.com) Trump put this 10% tariff in place on February 24, 2026, after the Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that he could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his earlier sweeping tariffs. Four days after losing on one statute, the administration switched to another one and kept taxing imports. (usnews.com) (ms.now) The new law is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used provision that lets a president respond to balance-of-payments problems with temporary import restrictions. The key limits are plain: tariffs can go up to 15%, and they can last 150 days unless Congress steps in. (insidetrade.com) (newsbreak.com) The administration says the United States has a persistent trade deficit, meaning the country buys more goods from abroad than it sells overseas, and that this gap justifies the tariff. The states and businesses suing say Section 122 was written for short-term monetary stress, not for a standing tax on almost everything entering the country. (usnews.com) (supplychaindive.com) One lawsuit was brought by 24 mostly Democratic-led states, led by Oregon, and another was brought by two small businesses that import goods. Both cases landed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the specialist federal court that handles fights over customs duties and import rules. (usnews.com) (carolinajournal.com) The panel hearing the case includes Chief Judge Mark Barnett, Judge Claire Kelly, and Judge Timothy Stanceu. That detail matters because this is not a single emergency ruling from one judge; it is a full three-judge trade court panel weighing whether the tariff can survive at all. (carolinajournal.com) (wbt.com) The Supreme Court’s February ruling was already a blunt warning that tariff power is not unlimited just because a president says the economy is under strain. The justices said Congress had not clearly handed the president the power to create broad tariffs under the emergency law Trump used the first time. (ms.now 1) (ms.now 2) That is why this hearing is bigger than one 10% tax. If the court says Section 122 also does not fit, companies that rushed to price goods, rewrite contracts, and rethink suppliers after February 24 may have to do it all over again. (usnews.com) (insidetrade.com) The tariff itself is simple enough to describe: if an importer brings in $100 worth of goods, the government adds $10 at the border. The hard part is planning around a tariff that might disappear by court order, come back under a new legal theory, and then get challenged again a few weeks later. (usnews.com) (ms.now) Section 122 has another clock built into it: 150 days is just under five months. So even if Trump wins this round, the statute was not designed to be a permanent all-purpose tariff machine, which means Congress could still end up back at the center of a fight Trump has tried to run from the White House. (insidetrade.com) (newsbreak.com) What the court is really deciding is whether the president found a lawful detour after the Supreme Court blocked the main road on February 20. If the answer is no, the next chapter of U.S. trade policy will be written less by tariff announcements and more by judges, refund claims, and whatever Congress is willing to authorize in plain words. (usnews.com) (ms.now)