US Administration Appeals Court Ruling Invalidating Trump’s Section 122 Global Tariffs
The Trump administration has requested a stay from the U.S. Court of International Trade to continue collecting 10% global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, despite a recent ruling declaring them unlawful. The court found the government failed to properly justify the tariffs using balance-of-payments deficits. While the administration appeals to the Federal Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court, it argues that halting collection would trigger massive refund claims and undermine trade policy. Importers are advised to file individual lawsuits for relief, creating significant legal and financial uncertainty in international trade.
Editorial summary awaiting refresh
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
US Seeks to Maintain Trump Tariffs Despite Court Ruling
The United States government has formally requested permission to continue collecting tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump, following a significant legal setback. Last week, a panel of the US Court of International Trade issued a 2-1 decision declaring that Trump's utilization of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to enforce these tariffs was invalid. This judicial ruling challenges the legal basis used for the imposition of specific trade duties during the Trump administration. Despite the court's finding that the statutory authority was misapplied, US officials are arguing for the continuation of tariff collection, likely citing economic stability or ongoing trade negotiations as justification. The case highlights the ongoing tension between executive trade powers and judicial oversight in international commerce regulations. As the legal battle proceeds, businesses and international trade partners remain attentive to the potential financial implications of this dispute. The outcome could set a precedent for how future administrations utilize emergency trade acts. This development underscores the complex interplay between domestic legal frameworks and global trade policies, with significant repercussions for importers and exporters affected by the contested tariffs.
MoneywebUS Seeks to Maintain Trump Tariffs Despite Court Ruling
The Trump administration has requested the US Court of International Trade to pause a recent ruling that declared the president’s 10% global tariffs unlawful under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This legal maneuver aims to ensure importers continue paying levies while the government appeals the decision to the Federal Circuit. Although the court initially blocked enforcement only for specific plaintiffs, the Justice Department argues that allowing the ruling to take full effect would trigger a flood of refund claims, severely undermining the administration's trade agenda and draining resources. The court previously rejected the government's interpretation of balance-of-payments deficits as justification for the tariffs. With over $8 billion collected in March alone from more than 170,000 importers, officials argue these tariffs are critical for ongoing trade negotiations and managing import flows. If lower courts refuse the stay, the administration plans to seek emergency intervention from the Supreme Court, which recently struck down different tariffs under the IEEPA. The legal battle continues as the tariffs are set to expire in July.
Insurance JournalUS Seeks to Maintain Trump Tariffs Collection Despite Court Ruling
The Trump administration has requested a stay from the US Court of International Trade to continue collecting Section 122 tariffs while appealing a recent ruling that declared them unlawful. Although the court initially blocked enforcement only for specific plaintiffs, the Justice Department argues that allowing the decision to take effect immediately would overwhelm the system with refund claims and undermine the president’s trade agenda. The court previously found that the administration incorrectly used trade deficits to justify the tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974, rather than proving balance-of-payments deficits. Since February, over 170,000 importers have paid deposits on 13 million goods entries, with customs collecting approximately $8 billion in March alone. Government officials, including US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, contend these levies are critical for ongoing trade negotiations and controlling import flows. If lower courts refuse the stay, the administration plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which recently struck down different global tariffs under the IEEPA. Critics argue that prolonging the collection creates uncertainty for businesses seeking legal stability.
The Straits Times World NewsUS Seeks to Maintain Trump Tariffs Collection Pending Appeal
The Trump administration has requested the United States Court of International Trade to pause its recent ruling that declared the president's 10 percent global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 unlawful. This legal maneuver aims to ensure importers continue paying levies while the government appeals the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The trade court previously ruled in a 2-1 decision that the administration failed to properly identify balance-of-payments deficits as required by law, though enforcement was initially blocked only for specific plaintiffs. The Justice Department argues that allowing the ruling to take full effect would undermine the president's trade agenda and overwhelm resources needed for refunding earlier tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. Since the proclamation took effect in February, over 170,000 importers have paid deposits on 13 million goods entries, generating approximately $8 billion in March alone. If lower courts refuse the stay, the administration plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court, highlighting the ongoing tension between executive trade powers and judicial oversight.
Financial PostTrump Seeks to Maintain Import Tariffs Following Court Ruling Against Legal Basis
The Trump administration has requested the United States Court of International Trade to suspend a recent ruling that declared its 10% global import tariffs illegal. The court previously rejected the White House's interpretation of 'balance of payments deficits' under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, stating the administration failed to formally demonstrate the required economic conditions. Despite the defeat, the government argues that immediate enforcement of the decision would trigger a surge of lawsuits and undermine trade policy. Consequently, they seek to continue collecting tariffs while the appeal proceeds through the Federal Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court. This legal battle follows an earlier Supreme Court decision striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Data indicates that over 170,000 importers have paid into the tariff system since February, generating approximately $8 billion in March alone. Officials defend the measures as crucial for international negotiations and addressing trade imbalances. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions in US trade strategy, which has also seen specific punitive tariffs, such as a 50% rate on Brazilian goods, linked to political pressures regarding former President Jair Bolsonaro.
ExameImporters Consider Lawsuits Against Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Following Court Ruling
Trade lawyers are advising importers to file lawsuits to halt the collection of President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This recommendation follows a May 7 ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which declared the tariffs illegal for the three plaintiffs involved in the case. Although the ruling does not automatically stop nationwide tariff collection, legal experts suggest that individual importers must file complaints to secure similar relief and potential refunds. The Trump administration, represented by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, plans to appeal the decision and likely seek to continue collecting duties during the proceedings. However, attorneys argue that recent Supreme Court precedents rejecting similar emergency tariff powers increase the likelihood of success for challengers. Conversely, some legal experts caution that the two-year statute of limitations allows time to wait for appellate outcomes. The temporary Section 122 tariffs are scheduled to expire on July 24, 2026, with expectations that they will be replaced by Section 301 tariffs targeting unfair trade practices.
Supply Chain Dive - Latest NewsUS Trade Court Rules Against Trump's 10% Global Tariffs
The U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled against President Donald Trump's imposition of 10% global tariffs, declaring them illegal under the Trade Act of 1974. In a 2-1 decision issued on May 7, 2026, the three-judge panel determined that the administration lacked sufficient legal justification for invoking Section 122, which allows tariffs to correct balance of payments deficits or prevent dollar depreciation. This ruling follows a previous Supreme Court decision earlier in the year that invalidated broader tariffs known as 'Liberation Day' duties. The court ordered the immediate cessation of tariff collections from the plaintiffs, who included small businesses, and mandated the issuance of refunds starting the following week. Although one judge dissented, arguing the victory was premature, the decision significantly constrains the executive branch's authority to enact tariffs unilaterally. This legal setback challenges a key component of the administration's trade strategy, occurring less than three months after the tariffs took effect on February 24. The ruling underscores ongoing judicial scrutiny of the administration's use of emergency trade powers for diplomatic and economic leverage.
ground