US trade court rules against Trump's 10% global tariffs
Last edited Thu May 7, 2026, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: Reuters
May 7, 2026 5:04 PM EDT Updated 5 mins ago
NEW YORK, May 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. trade court on Thursday ruled against President Donald Trump's latest 10% global tariffs, finding across-the-board tariffs were not justified under a 1970s trade law. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in favor of small businesses that challenged the tariffs, which took effect on February 24. The ruling was 2-1, with one judge saying it was premature to grant victory to the small business plaintiffs.
The small businesses had argued the new tariffs were an attempt to sidestep a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Republican president's 2025 tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In his February order, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for duties for up to 150 days to correct serious "balance of payments deficits" or head off an imminent depreciation of the dollar.
Thursday's court ruling found the law was not an appropriate step for the kinds of trade deficits that Trump cited in his February order.
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 Jay Foreman, CEO of toymaker Basic Fun!
We are encouraged by the courts recognition that these tariffs exceeded the Presidents authority. This ruling brings needed clarity and stability for companies navigating global supply chains," he said in a statement.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-trade-court-rules-against-trumps-10-global-tariff-2026-05-07/
Just breaking.

Article updated.
Original article -
NEW YORK, May 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. trade court on Thursday ruled against President Donald Trump's latest 10% global tariffs, finding across-the-board tariffs were not justified under a 1970s trade law.
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in favor of small businesses that challenged the tariffs, which took effect on February 24. The ruling was 2-1, with one judge saying it was premature to grant victory to the small business plaintiffs.
The small businesses had argued the new tariffs were an attempt to sidestep a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Republican president's 2025 tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
In his February order, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for duties for up to 150 days to correct serious "balance of payments deficits" or head off an imminent depreciation of the dollar. Thursday's court ruling found the law was not an appropriate step for the kinds of trade deficits that Trump cited in his February order.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)I just deleted my OP
https://democraticunderground.com/10143662025
BumRushDaShow
(171,719 posts)I get all kinds of breaking news banners constantly on my iPhone (and on my Apple watch). So if I'm at the 'puter, I'll throw the story in a tab to post at some point.
I'm surprised this isn't getting much attention yet as folks are referencing the provision that this court just threw out, in other threads.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)trump's new replacement tariffs are illegal. These tariffs can only be used when there is a balance-of-payments deficit which is very different from a balance of trade deficit. Since the US is no longer on a currency fixed exchange rate there have not been any balance of payment deficits for a couple of decades. These tariffs will be challenged and trump will lose again
Fascinating National Review post on Trump's latest Tariff gambit. Archive link here (it's pay walled, please don't give them money lol)
— Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z
archive.is/r4Xdf
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/
A trade deficit between the U.S. and a foreign nation occurs, mainly in connection with goods (which is just one aspect of international commerce), when imports are greater than exports. This is not really a problem for a variety of reasons e.g., a trade deficit results in an investment surplus, the U.S. is a major services economy and often runs exported services surpluses that mitigate the imports deficit in goods, etc.
The balance of payments is a broader concept than the balance of trade. It accounts for all the economic transactions that take place between the United States and the rest of the world. Even without getting into every kind of transaction that entails, suffice it to say that foreign investment in the United States, coupled with the advantages our nation accrues because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.
Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.
Its vital to understand why Section 122 was enacted. There was a financial crisis in the late 60s and early 70s under the Bretton Woods system, when the dollar was tied to gold. Foreign countries that held dollar reserves could exchange them for gold at a fixed rate. Meanwhile, our government was spending at a high clip due to the Vietnam War and Great Society programs. This and the obligation to pay out gold put enormous pressure on the dollar. In response, in 1971, President Nixon severed the dollars tie to gold and as several justices recounted in Fridays Learning Resources opinions imposed a temporary 10 percent import surcharge (a tariff) to stabilize the economy......
There is no rationale under Section 122 to impose tariffs. Because President Trump has no unilateral authority to order tariffs, he must meet the preconditions of Section 122 to justify levying them. He cannot. Not even close.
underpants
(197,035 posts)APRIL 14, 2026 1:57PM
Section 122 Is an Anachronism, Not a License for New Tariffs
The administrations latest tariff move does not just rest on bad policy. It rests on a concept that no longer fits the world we live in. That is why I joined the economists amicus brief challenging the administrations use of Section 122 in the US Court of International Trade, which can be found here. The core problem is simple: Section 122 was written for a monetary order that has passed. The administration is trying to revive it as if nothing important has changed in the international monetary system since the early 1970s.
https://www.cato.org/blog/section-122-anachronism-not-license-new-tariffs
underpants
(197,035 posts)Good for them.
they
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)underpants
(197,035 posts)republianmushroom
(22,607 posts)More work for the SCOTUS ?




