U.S. court questions 10% tariffs
A U.S. trade court has asked whether President Trump's 10% global tariffs can lawfully be justified under a 1974 statute that some states say was meant for monetary crises rather than persistent trade deficits. The judicial scrutiny focuses on the legal basis for imposition and could affect the timing and enforceability of the tariff measure. (indiatoday.in)
A federal trade court in New York is pressing the Trump administration to explain whether its 10 percent global tariff fits a narrow 1974 law. (reuters.com) The case was argued on Friday, April 10, before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade. Twenty-four mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses are asking the court to block the tariff, which took effect on February 24. (reuters.com) President Donald Trump imposed the levy under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court, on February 20, threw out his earlier worldwide tariffs that had relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. (politico.com) (opb.org) Section 122 lets a president impose a temporary import surcharge of as much as 15 percent for up to 150 days. The statute ties that power to a “large and serious” United States balance-of-payments deficit, a term the judges spent hours trying to pin down. (law.cornell.edu) (axios.com) The dispute turns on whether that phrase means a monetary crisis, like pressure on the dollar and international payments, or whether it can cover a long-running trade gap in goods. Lawyers for Oregon said Congress wrote the law for short-term currency trouble, not for permanent trade deficits. (bloomberg.com) (congress.gov) Administration lawyers told the court the tariffs are a lawful response to the United States importing more goods than it exports. Trump has also said he wants to raise the levy to 15 percent, the top rate Section 122 allows without new action from Congress. (reuters.com) (bloomberg.com) Judges did not rule from the bench on April 10, and any decision is likely to be appealed. That means the legal fight over who controls broad tariff policy — the White House or Congress — is still moving through the courts. (bloomberg.com) (politico.com)
