The US Court of International Trade rules that President Donald Trump’s latest 10% temporary global tariffs are not justified under a 1970s trade law. Multiple outlets report the tariffs were challenged by two private businesses and the State of Washington, which the court rules in favor of. The decision comes after the tariffs took effect on 24 February and is described as a setback for the Trump administration. While the court finds the across-the-board duties unlawful, it issues a narrow injunction rather than blocking the tariffs broadly. As reported, the tariffs remain in place for other importers not included in the court’s order while the administration can appeal and continue litigation. One report says the ruling is 2-1, with one judge arguing that granting victory to the small business plaintiffs was premature. Another account notes the administration is pursuing further steps, including the possibility of revisiting tariff levels tied to trade negotiations. Overall, the ruling directly benefits the specific plaintiffs named in the case but does not automatically halt the tariffs for the full universe of importers during the ongoing legal process.
US Court blocks Trump’s 10% global tariffs for some plaintiffs pending appeal
The US Court of International Trade rules that President Donald Trump’s latest 10% temporary global tariffs are not justified under a 1970s trade law. Multiple outlets report the tariffs were challeng...
- The US Court of International Trade rules Trump’s 10% temporary global tariffs are unjustified under a 1970s trade law.
- The court rules in favor of two businesses and the State of Washington that challenged the tariffs.
- The ruling blocks the tariffs only for the named plaintiffs (and Washington), while leaving the tariffs in place for other importers.
- The tariffs took effect on 24 February and the court’s decision comes amid ongoing legal proceedings and possible appeal.
- One account reports the decision is split 2-1.
Two businesses and Washington state had sued over the tariffs, which were imposed in February.
1 month agoThe Trump administration on Friday appealed a court ruling that found a 10% global tariff imposed in February was not justified under a 1970s trade law. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on Thursday in a 2-1 decision that Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act was not meant to address trade deficits that occur when the U.S. imports more goods than it exports. The court, however, only blocked the tariffs for three importers that sued - two small businesses and the state of Washington.Also read: Trump's tariff tantrums may leave India exposed to a 'one-sided' trade deal: GTRI While the ruling applies to a set of levies due to expire in about two months, it marks another setback for Trump's global tariff ambitions and comes a week before he is due to discuss trade tensions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. It also sets the stage for another protracted legal battle over billions of dollars' worth of tariff refunds, three months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump's sweeping global tariffs imposed under a national emergencies law. Trump blamed the trade court decision on "two radical left judges" when speaking to reporters on Thursday. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Friday the Trump administration expects to prevail in the appeal, although he also expressed confidence in earlier tariffs that were ultimately invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court.Also read: India, US 'very close' to trade deal, need to get over last hurdle, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau says The Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump had no authority to impose the earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, leading Trump to impose replacement tariffs of 10% on all imports using Section 122 of the Trade Act. The new tariffs were a temporary replacement, and they were due to expire on July 24 unless extended by Congress. The Trump administration still plans broader tariffs on major trading partners by invoking a third law that has withstood numerous legal challenges, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which covers unfair trade practices. It has three Section 301 tariff investigations underway due for completion in July.
1 month agoThe court has provided relief to only the plaintiffs — two small companies in the U.S. and Washington State — with the tariff remaining on all other importers
1 month agoThe US Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 on May 7 that President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is illegal, blocking a key pillar of the administration’s trade architecture less than three months after it took effect on February 24. The decision came one day […] The post U.S. Trade Court Strikes Down Trump’s 10% Global Tariff appeared first on The Rio Times.
1 month agoUS President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs were declared unlawful by a federal trade court just months after the US Supreme Court vacated earlier levies he’d imposed. Brendan Murray has the details on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)
1 month agoThe US Court of International Trade on Friday ruled that US President Donald Trump's latest 10% temporary global duties are unjustified under a 1970s trade law, but blocked the levies only for two private importers and the State of Washington. The decision leaves the temporary tariffs in place for all other importers while any appeal by the Trump administration plays out.
1 month ago
JD Vance says U.S.-Iran talks progress, including Iran agreeing to IAEA inspector reentry
Vice President JD Vance reports that U.S.-Iran negotiations are making progress as talks continue in Europe. Speaking to...
West Bengal’s BJP government presents first interim budget with jobs, women’s welfare and DA hike
West Bengal’s new BJP government presents its first budget for the remaining eight months of the fiscal year, focusing o...
IPOB Fourth DOS deputy backs Kanu’s expulsion of former Third Directorate members
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) discusses leadership changes within its Directorate of State following the dissol...