Court questions 10% tariffs
Federal judges are openly questioning whether President Trump's temporary 10% global tariffs can be justified under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which was invoked as the legal basis for the levy. A federal trade court heard arguments Friday that Section 122 was written for monetary instability—not chronic trade deficits—and judges pressed whether that framework allows the administration's emergency action today. ( )
Federal judges are openly questioning whether President Trump can keep a 10% tariff on most imports under a law written for short-term payments crises. (chicagotribune.com) A three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade heard arguments in New York on Friday, April 10, in lawsuits brought by 24 states led by Oregon and by two small businesses. Judges pressed government lawyers on whether a long-running trade deficit fits Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. (pbs.org) Section 122 lets a president impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% for 150 days without new legislation, but the statute ties that power to “fundamental international payments problems,” including a large balance-of-payments deficit or an imminent drop in the dollar. The administration used that authority for Trump’s February 24 order setting a 10% global tariff. (law.cornell.edu, federalregister.gov) The case reached court after the Supreme Court cut off Trump’s broader tariff route on February 20. In *Learning Resources v. Trump*, the justices held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize presidential tariffs. (supremecourt.gov, congress.gov) That ruling pushed the White House to a narrower law with tighter limits. Section 122 caps the tariff rate at 15% and the initial period at 150 days unless Congress votes to extend it. (whitehouse.gov, law.cornell.edu) The states say that still does not solve the legal problem. Oregon’s Justice Department says Section 122 covers balance-of-payments deficits, not the ordinary trade deficits cited in Trump’s proclamation. (doj.state.or.us) Government lawyers argued that courts should defer to the president’s judgment about whether international payments problems exist. Judges signaled skepticism, asking whether that reading would let any president convert a chronic trade gap into an emergency tariff power. (politico.com, reuters.com) The tariff is temporary on paper, but the calendar matters. If the February 24 proclamation stands, the 150-day window would run to late July unless Congress steps in. (federalregister.gov, opb.org) No ruling came from the bench on Friday. The next test is whether the trade court treats Trump’s 10% tariff as a lawful stopgap or another tariff program that outran the statute behind it. (nbcnews.com)
