Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(171,719 posts)
Thu May 7, 2026, 05:35 PM 16 hrs ago

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 court’s recognition that these tariffs exceeded the President’s 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 -

May 7, 2026 5:04 PM EDT Updated 6 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.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US trade court rules against Trump's 10% global tariffs (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 16 hrs ago OP
You beat me LetMyPeopleVote 14 hrs ago #1
LOL BumRushDaShow 14 hrs ago #3
Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal LetMyPeopleVote 14 hrs ago #2
The Cato Institute says the same. Double whammy. underpants 13 hrs ago #4
Ketchup! That must've been a pool of small businesses underpants 13 hrs ago #5
The ketchup alert status has been raised to KETCHCON 1! LetMyPeopleVote 13 hrs ago #6
😂😂😂 underpants 3 hrs ago #8
And of today a treat to raise tariffs. republianmushroom 13 hrs ago #7

BumRushDaShow

(171,719 posts)
3. LOL
Thu May 7, 2026, 07:55 PM
14 hrs ago

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)
2. Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal
Thu May 7, 2026, 07:18 PM
14 hrs ago

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)

archive.is/r4Xdf

Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/

In Section 122, Congress endowed the president with narrow, temporary authority to impose tariffs “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” (emphasis added). What Trump is complaining about — something he insists is a crisis but is not — is the balance of trade, not of payments. The United States does not have an overall balance of payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.

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 world’s reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.

Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.

It’s 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 dollar’s tie to gold and — as several justices recounted in Friday’s 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)
4. The Cato Institute says the same. Double whammy.
Thu May 7, 2026, 08:14 PM
13 hrs ago
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3661978


APRIL 14, 2026 1:57PM
Section 122 Is an Anachronism, Not a License for New Tariffs

The administration’s 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 administration’s 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
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US trade court rules agai...