Federal court rules Trump’s 10% global tariffs unlawful, blocking administration plan
- A split U.S. Court of International Trade panel ruled on May 7 that Trump’s fallback 10% global tariff exceeded Section 122 authority. - The judges blocked collection only for Washington state, Burlap & Barrel, and Basic Fun!, leaving the duties in place for most importers. - The setback follows the Supreme Court’s February tariff loss and pushes the White House toward narrower Section 301 trade actions.
Tariffs are back in court again — and Trump just lost another round. On May 7, a split panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade said his 10% worldwide tariff plan was unlawful, knocking out the administration’s backup strategy after the Supreme Court already killed the first, broader version in February. But this is the important catch — the ruling does not shut the tariffs off for everyone right away. It blocks them only for the plaintiffs who brought the case. (politico.com) ### What exactly did the court strike down? This was Trump’s “Plan B” tariff. After the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026 that IEEPA did not let the president impose sweeping global tariffs, the administration switched to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and put a temporary 10% tariff on imports(politico.com)s February proclamation invalid and the tariffs unauthorized. (politico.com) ### Why did Section 122 matter so much? Because it was supposed to be the cleaner legal route. Section 122 does let a president impose temporary import surcharges — up to 15% for 150 days — but only in a pretty specific situation: serious balance-of-payments problems. The court said the administration had (politico.com)eneral-purpose tariff switch. The judges said no. (politico.com) ### So are the tariffs gone now? Not for most companies. That’s the weird part. The court gave relief only to Washington state and the two businesses that sued — Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun! The judges said the broader group of 24 mostly Democratic-led states did not have standing to win a universal inju(politico.com)m nearly everyone else while appeals play out. (politico.com) ### Why was the ruling so narrow? Because this case turned as much on procedure as on presidential power. A court can agree that a policy is unlawful and still limit who gets the benefit of that ruling. That is what happened here. Think of it less like a law being erased and more like a hole being punched in it for the people standing in the right place. Other importers now have a roadmap, but not automatic protection. (politico.com) ### Why is this another big problem for Trump? Because it shows the White House has now lost on both of its shortcut tariff theories. First came the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in February against the IEEPA tariffs. Now the trade court has rejected the Section 122 replacement. That does not end Trump’s tari(politico.com)arrower justifications. (supremecourt.gov) ### What tool is left? The administration is still looking at Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — the same framework used for tariffs tied to unfair trade practices. That route is more established in court, but it is also more cumbersome. It usually requires investigations, findings, and a tighter link to specific countries or conduct. (supremecourt.gov)at Congress did not hand presidents unlimited tariff power. (usnews.com) ### What happens next? An appeal is expected, first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and possibly after that to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, these temporary tariffs were already set to expire in July, so the legal fight now overlaps with a political one — whether Trump can keep selling a maximal tariff agenda when the courts keep trimming the legal tools available to carry it out. (usnews.com) ### Bottom line? This was not a full shutdown of Trump’s global tariff plan. But it was another clear message from the courts — presidents can push hard on trade, but they cannot just grab any old statute and treat it like a blank check. (politico.com)
