In Setback for Trump, US Court Strikes Down 10% Global Tariffs as 'Unlawful'
US courts have ruled against Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs, citing lack of legal justification.
advertisement
United States federal courts have ruled that former President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs, imposed after a Supreme Court defeat, are invalid and not justified under existing trade laws. The rulings, delivered by the US Court of International Trade, found that Trump exceeded the authority granted by Congress, and the tariffs cannot be enforced for the plaintiffs involved. The decisions follow a series of legal challenges from states and businesses affected by the tariffs.
According to Deccan Herald, the trade court’s 2-1 verdict determined that the 10% tariffs, introduced in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, were not legally justified. The court’s order currently applies only to two small businesses and the state of Washington, while the tariffs remain in force for other importers during the appeal process.
As reported by The Hindu, the panel found that Donald Trump overstepped the tariff powers delegated by Congress. The majority opinion stated the tariffs were “invalid” and “unauthorised by law,” while one judge dissented, arguing for broader presidential leeway. The administration is expected to appeal, potentially escalating the case to the Supreme Court.
As highlighted by Deutsche Welle, the court’s decision followed Trump’s attempt to use Section 122 after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court concluded that the cited trade deficits did not meet the criteria for invoking the 1974 law.
As noted in an article by Hindustan Times, the ruling came months after the Supreme Court invalidated broader tariffs imposed in 2025. The relief granted by the court was limited to the three plaintiffs: the state of Washington, Burlap & Barrel, and Basic Fun!. The court did not block the tariffs nationwide, leaving uncertainty for other businesses.
As coverage revealed, the administration’s use of Section 122 was challenged by small businesses, who argued that the tariffs were an attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. The court’s majority found that the president had gone beyond the powers granted by Congress, while the administration is considering further investigations that could lead to new tariffs.
The decision’s impact is currently limited to the parties who challenged the administration, with the court directing refunds to the importers involved. Tariffs on sectors such as steel, aluminium, and automobiles remain unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision. The administration defended the tariffs by citing a $1.2 trillion trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4% of GDP.
“This decision is an important win for American companies that rely on global manufacturing to deliver safe and affordable products. Unlawful tariffs make it harder for businesses like ours to compete and grow,” said Basic Fun! CEO Jay Foreman, as quoted in multiple reports.
Legal experts have discussed the broader implications of these rulings, noting that the Supreme Court’s decisions have reinforced Congressional authority over tariffs. The ongoing legal battles highlight the limits of executive power in trade policy and the role of the judiciary in interpreting statutory authority.
Further analysis indicates that Trump has continued to threaten higher tariffs on the European Union over delayed trade agreements, despite the recent court setbacks. The administration’s approach to trade remains under scrutiny as legal and diplomatic challenges persist.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.