Trump tariffs in court
A coalition led by Oregon has asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to block President Trump’s latest global tariffs, arguing Congress — not the White House — controls tariff policy. (opb.org) The hearing follows a recent Supreme Court setback for the administration’s broader tariff approach and leaves companies facing duties that are both costly and legally uncertain. (chicagotribune.com) The outcome could narrow or expand presidential leeway to use tariffs as a rapid tool, depending on whether the court sides with the states or the administration. (katu.com)
A federal trade court is weighing whether President Donald Trump can keep a 10 percent tariff on most imports that took effect on February 24. (apnews.com) The case was argued on Friday, April 10, before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade in New York. Oregon is leading a coalition of 24 states, and two small businesses filed a parallel challenge to the same tariff. (usnews.com) Trump imposed the tariff on February 20, hours after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let a president impose tariffs. The replacement tariff relies instead on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. (supremecourt.gov) (whitehouse.gov) Section 122 is narrower than the emergency-powers law Trump used before. It allows a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 percent for no more than 150 days unless Congress extends it. (uscode.house.gov) (federalregister.gov) The states say that limit is the point: Congress wrote Section 122 for short-term balance-of-payments problems, not as a standing license for a global tariff. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said after the hearing that Trump’s order “go[es] beyond what Congress authorized.” (doj.state.or.us) Judges spent much of Friday pressing both sides on an old trade-law phrase: “balance-of-payments.” Reuters reported that the panel questioned whether a large trade deficit, by itself, is enough to trigger Section 122. (reuters.com) The administration argues the law gives the president room to act quickly when imports and international payments threaten the economy. In its February proclamation, the White House said Section 122 can be used to address “fundamental international payments problems.” (whitehouse.gov) The dispute reaches beyond this 10 percent levy because the Supreme Court’s February ruling already cut back one major source of unilateral tariff power. A decision against the administration here would further narrow the legal tools a president can use without a new vote in Congress. (congress.gov) (politico.com) For importers, the fight is not abstract. Customs and Border Protection told importers the 10 percent duty applies to imported articles from every country, unless specifically exempt, for the 150-day period that began in February. (content.govdelivery.com) The court did not rule from the bench on April 10, so the tariff remains in place while the judges decide whether Trump’s backup plan survives the next round of review. (apnews.com)
