Federal court hears new case against Trump's latest global tariffs

Lead

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade in New York heard oral arguments on Friday in a case challenging the legality of President Donald Trump's latest round of global tariffs. The tariffs, a 10 percent import tax imposed in February, were introduced shortly after the Supreme Court struck down earlier, more sweeping tariffs that the president had justified under emergency economic powers.

The challenge, brought by 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses, contends that the new tariffs circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling and misuse an authority intended for a different era. The plaintiffs are urging the court to block the tariffs before they expire on their normal 150-day timeline, arguing that allowing them to run their course would enable the administration to cycle through different statutes to keep tariffs in place indefinitely.

Coverage Comparison

The case drew attention from outlets across the globe, with each framing the proceedings through its own lens. Al Jazeera emphasized the scale of the legal assault on what it called a "central pillar" of Trump's economic policy, while the South China Morning Post provided a more procedural account, noting the court's history with previous tariff cases. The Hindu, covering from a South Asian perspective, highlighted the broader implications for Trump's economic agenda.

All three outlets reported that the court is weighing the legality of the Section 122 tariffs, which were imposed after the Supreme Court invalidated tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). None of the reports suggested that the judges indicated how they might rule, though they did note that the panel sharply questioned both sides.

Key Claims

The core legal question centers on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days to address large and serious US balance-of-payments deficits. The plaintiffs, including Oregon's lawyer Brian Marshall, argue that this authority was designed to protect the US dollar from sudden depreciation in the 1970s, when the dollar was still tied to gold reserves. Marshall told the court that the law "was meant to protect the US dollar from sudden depreciation" and cannot be repurposed to address routine trade deficits.

The administration has not yet presented its defense in the reports, but the court's prior rulings may offer clues. According to the South China Morning Post, the court has previously rejected business challenges seeking to invalidate Section 301 tariffs, which target unfair trade practices by specific countries, even as it struck down IEEPA-based tariffs last year. The distinction, the report notes, lies in how the authorities operate: Section 301 tariffs follow an investigation, while Section 122 measures are time-limited and must be referred to Congress after 150 days.

Al Jazeera framed the tariffs as a "central pillar" of Trump's foreign policy in his second term, with the president asserting broad authority to impose tariffs without congressional input. The Hindu similarly described the tariffs as "the centrepiece" of Trump's economic policy, underscoring the high stakes of the legal challenge.

Perspectives

The plaintiffs argue that allowing the tariffs to persist through successive re-impositions would effectively bypass the Supreme Court's earlier ruling, creating a permanent tariff regime without legislative approval. As Marshall put it, "[If] we have a successive series where there's always tariffs in place, that's a problem." Judge Claire Kelly appeared to acknowledge this concern, observing that unlike the IEEPA tariffs, "they're just 150 days," suggesting the court may be weighing the temporary nature of the current measure.

From the administration's perspective, the tariffs are a tool to address what it views as chronic trade imbalances, though the reports do not include a direct defense. The court's history of rejecting Section 301 challenges may indicate a willingness to defer to the executive on trade policy, but the IEEPA precedent cuts the other way.

The outcome of this case could clarify the limits of presidential tariff authority, particularly whether the administration can use Section 122 as a stopgap while pursuing other statutory routes. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks, and its implications will likely reverberate through trade policy and the ongoing legal battles over executive authority.