The Trump administration filed an appeal after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the 10% global tariff imposed in February exceeded the authority granted by the 1974 Trade Act. The court’s majority opinion concluded that Section 122 of the Act was not intended to address trade deficits resulting from the U.S. importing more than it exports.
Despite the ruling, the court only enjoined the tariffs on three plaintiffs—two small businesses and the state of Washington—leaving the levies in place for other importers. The tariffs were set to expire in late July unless Congress acted to extend them.
This legal setback follows a recent Supreme Court decision that invalidated earlier Trump tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing the president lacked authority under that law. As a result, the administration replaced those tariffs with the current 10% global levy, invoking Section 122 as a temporary measure.
The Trump administration expressed confidence in prevailing on appeal. Nevertheless, the ruling complicates the broader strategy to impose tariffs globally, amid ongoing negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Plans remain to pursue broader tariff actions through Section 301 of the Trade Act, which targets unfair trade practices and has maintained stronger legal standing through multiple challenges. The administration currently has three Section 301 investigations slated for resolution in July.
Former President Trump criticized the trade court decision, attributing the setback to ideological bias among judges, reflecting ongoing political tensions surrounding trade policy enforcement.