SouthernWorldwide.com – A United States trade court has ruled against President Trump’s recent imposition of a 10% tariff on global imports.
The U.S. Court of International Trade, in a 2-1 decision, sided with 24 states and a coalition of businesses. These plaintiffs had filed a lawsuit in March challenging the legality of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration on most imported goods.
These new tariffs were enacted in February, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned a previous set of “Liberation Day” tariffs. Those earlier tariffs, largely enacted in April 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision stated that the IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose such tariffs. This ruling paved the way for the subsequent legal challenges.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the White House introduced the global tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision permits the president to impose tariffs for a period of 150 days to address significant balance-of-payments deficits. The administration is reportedly planning to implement more permanent tariffs under a different legal framework, requiring investigations into countries’ trade practices.
Read more : What's Next for Artemis and a Potential Return to the Moon
In its detailed 53-page ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade declared the Section 122 tariffs to be “unlawful.” The court also acknowledged that these tariffs had resulted in “economic harm” to the plaintiffs involved in the case.
“Defendants do not explain why they should be permitted to continue the unlawful collection of Section 122 duties from Importer Plaintiffs for the duration of the imposition of such duties,” the judges stated in their ruling.
The panel’s decision mandates that the Trump administration cease collecting tariffs from the state of Washington and the two businesses that initiated the lawsuit. Furthermore, the White House is required to issue refunds, including interest, for all tariffs previously paid by these three plaintiffs.
However, the court did not issue a universal injunction that would have nullified the tariffs entirely for all importers. The ruling specifically addressed the plaintiffs in this particular case.
The Trump administration is also anticipated to begin refunding businesses that paid duties under the now-overturned IEEPA tariffs. These refunds are expected to commence this month.
The court’s reasoning for deeming the Section 122 tariffs unlawful centered on the requirement for a deficit in the U.S.’s overall balance of payments. The court noted that the White House’s proclamation for these tariffs primarily focused on narrower economic concepts like the U.S.’s trade deficit and current account deficit, rather than the broader balance of payments.
The majority opinion was supported by two judges appointed by former President Obama. One judge, appointed by former President George W. Bush, dissented from the majority decision.
When asked about the ruling, President Trump expressed a characteristic sentiment, stating, “nothing surprises me with the courts.” He referred to the judges in the majority as “radical left.” The president also indicated that his approach to imposing tariffs would continue, suggesting that alternative methods would be pursued.
“We always do it a different way,” the president told reporters. “We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.” This suggests a strategy of adapting to legal challenges by finding new legal avenues for implementing trade policies.
This report was contributed to by Kathryn Watson, Lucia I Suarez Sang, Melissa Quinn, and Joe Walsh.
