US Court Strikes Down Trump's Latest Global Tariff Move on Trade Authority

A US federal trade court struck down President Trump's latest global tariff move, ruling he exceeded his authority under a 1974 trade law. The 2-1 decision said Section 122 was designed for 1970s balance-of-payments crises, not modern trade deficits. The ruling sided with importers Burlap and Barrel and Basic Fun, along with Washington state. The decision is expected to be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and could reach the Supreme Court.

Key Points: US Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariff Move on Trade Authority

  • US Court of International Trade struck down Trump's 10% import surcharge
  • Court ruled administration exceeded authority under Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974
  • Law intended for 1970s balance-of-payments crises, not modern trade deficits
  • Ruling likely to be appealed to Federal Circuit, possibly Supreme Court
3 min read

US court strikes down Trump's tariff move

A US federal trade court ruled Trump exceeded authority under a 1974 trade law, striking down 10% import surcharge. Decision could be appealed to Supreme Court.

"Such an expansive reading of the statute would raise a non-delegation issue, which in turn would prompt a constitutional question - US Court of International Trade majority opinion"

Washington, May 8

A US federal trade court struck down President Donald Trump's latest global tariff move, ruling that the administration exceeded its authority under a 1974 trade law while trying to impose a 10 per cent import surcharge on goods entering the United States.

In a 2-1 ruling, the US Court of International Trade said the Trump administration could not rely on broad trade and current account deficits to justify the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The court ruled that the law was designed to address specific "balance-of-payments" crises linked to the international monetary system that existed in the 1970s, not modern trade deficits.

Judges Mark A. Barnett and Claire R. Kelly wrote that Trump's proclamation "fails to assert that those required conditions have been satisfied."

Trump imposed the tariffs in February after the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down his previous tariff regime under emergency powers law. The new tariffs were announced under Section 122, which allows temporary import surcharges of up to 15 per cent for 150 days.

The court said the administration relied on current account deficits and trade deficits instead of the narrower "balance-of-payments deficits" Congress intended when it passed the law in 1974.

"Rather than identifying 'balance-of-payments deficits' as that term was intended in 1974, the Proclamation relies upon current account deficits, and a discussion of 'a large and serious trade deficit,'" the majority wrote.

The judges warned that accepting such a broad interpretation would effectively give presidents unlimited tariff authority.

"Such an expansive reading of the statute would raise a non-delegation issue, which in turn would prompt a constitutional question," the ruling said.

The decision sided with two importers - Burlap and Barrel and toy company Basic Fun - along with the State of Washington, while dismissing claims from several other Democratic-led states for lack of standing.

Judge Timothy Stanceu dissented. He argued the court should not second-guess the President's economic judgment or narrowly define how balance-of-payments deficits are measured.

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and could eventually return to the Supreme Court.

In February, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump lashed out at the justices during an appearance at the White House briefing room.

"We're going forward," Trump said at the time. "We will be able to take in more money."

Trump had defended Section 122 as one of several "very powerful alternatives" available to him after the Supreme Court rejected his earlier tariff regime.

The latest ruling comes amid growing legal and political scrutiny of Trump's use of executive authority on trade. Critics, including some Republicans, have argued that Congress - not the White House - holds constitutional authority over tariffs and trade policy. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had earlier said using emergency authorities "to circumvent Congress in the imposition of tariffs" was illegal.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

J
James A
This is a significant ruling. The courts are basically saying the president can't just invent new powers from old laws. As an American, I'm relieved that our system still has some safeguards against unilateral action.
P
Priya S
Trump keeps trying different loopholes and the courts keep shutting them down. Typical of someone who thinks they're above the law. For India, this could mean more predictable trade policies if the US goes back to congressional approval for tariffs.
S
Siddharth J
Interesting how the dissenting judge wanted to defer to the president's economic judgment. In India, we've seen how such deference can lead to bad policies. Glad the majority upheld the original intent of the 1974 law. Balance of payments deficits were meant for currency crises, not trade deficits.
M
Michael C
The 10% tariff was already harming American importers and consumers. Glad the courts stepped in. But I worry about what Trump will try next - he seems determined to bypass Congress entirely. This cycle of lawsuits is exhausting.
R
Rohit P
As an Indian, I can't help but notice the irony - Trump wanted to "protect" American jobs but kept using emergency powers that weren't meant for trade wars. The US system is complex but it works. Meanwhile, we have our own trade issues to worry about with Washington. Hope this ruling helps stabilize things.
K
Kav

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50