{"id":25895,"date":"2026-05-07T22:03:07","date_gmt":"2026-05-07T22:03:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/25895\/"},"modified":"2026-05-07T22:03:07","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T22:03:07","slug":"trade-court-rules-trumps-10-global-tariff-is-illegal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/25895\/","title":{"rendered":"Trade Court Rules Trump\u2019s 10% Global Tariff Is Illegal"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">A panel of federal judges on Thursday found President Trump had violated the law when he imposed a 10 percent tariff on most U.S. imports, dealing yet another legal setback to the White House in its efforts to wage a trade war without the express permission of Congress.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">In a split ruling, the Court of International Trade found that Mr. Trump had wrongly invoked a decades-old trade law when he applied those duties beginning in February. The president imposed the levies after his previous set of punishing tariffs <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2025\/02\/20\/us\/politics\/supreme-court-trump-tariffs.html\" title=\"\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">was struck down by the Supreme Court.<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">The decision appeared to place, for now, strict new limits on Mr. Trump\u2019s trade powers, which he has wielded aggressively in the hopes of resetting relationships with allies and adversaries, raising new revenue and encouraging more domestic manufacturing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">The next steps in the case are less clear, given that the administration always envisioned the across-the-board tariff as a temporary solution, one that would buy time for Mr. Trump to craft a perhaps more lasting set of higher rates using other legal authorities.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">The administration is likely to appeal. But a final loss would require the president to once again pay back any money collected from those duties, which Mr. Trump announced on Feb. 20. A refund process is already underway for the roughly $166 billion collected under Mr. Trump\u2019s prior set of sweeping and illegal tariffs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">After the Supreme Court invalidated those tariffs in February, the White House swiftly moved to revive them using a never-before-used provision in the Trade Act of 1974, known as <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/02\/24\/us\/politics\/trump-tariffs-new-legal-challenges.html\" title=\"\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Section 122<\/a>. The power allows the White House to apply tariffs up to 15 percent for a maximum of 150 days in response to \u201clarge and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits\u201d and situations that present \u201cfundamental international payments problems.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-ac37hb evys1bk0\">The two intricate concepts reflect lawmakers\u2019 concerns back when the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold, creating economic risks that the president might need to manage using tariffs. But the dollar is no longer pegged to that commodity, prompting a coalition of states and a group of small businesses to sue the Trump administration this spring, arguing that he did not meet the criteria under law to apply his 10 percent tariff.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A panel of federal judges on Thursday found President Trump had violated the law when he imposed a&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":25896,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[1512,14135,6238,12673,8,13111,9,12786,7,1071,13,11259],"class_list":{"0":"post-25895","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-top-stories","8":"tag-court-of-international-trade","9":"tag-customs-tariff","10":"tag-donald-j","11":"tag-federal-courts-us","12":"tag-headlines","13":"tag-international-trade-and-world-market","14":"tag-news","15":"tag-supreme-court-us","16":"tag-top-stories","17":"tag-trump","18":"tag-united-states","19":"tag-united-states-politics-and-government"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@news\/116535558279846739","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25895","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25895\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25896"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}