U.S. Trade Court Evaluates Legality of Trump's 10% Global Tariff

On April 10, 2026, a U.S. trade court began deliberations on the legality of a 10% global import tax imposed by President Donald Trump, which took effect on February 24. This tax has been contested by a coalition of 24 predominantly Democratic-led states and two small businesses, who argue that it circumvents a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated many of Trump's previous tariffs. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Reuters

During the hearing, Oregon's attorney, Brian Marshall, contended that the tariffs are based on outdated legal authority intended to protect the U.S. dollar from sudden depreciation, a measure relevant to the economic conditions of the 1970s. He argued that this authority should not be repurposed to address routine trade deficits, which do not constitute the "balance-of-payments deficits" as defined by the Trade Act of 1974. Marshall emphasized the potential for ongoing tariffs to create a problematic cycle, stating, "If we have a successive series where there's always tariffs in place, that's a problem."

UsNews and World ReportReuters

In contrast, the Trump administration maintains that the tariffs are a lawful response to a persistent trade deficit, asserting that the president is exercising executive powers granted by Congress to address what they describe as a balance-of-payments crisis. The administration's position is that the tariffs are justified under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for duties of up to 15% for a limited duration during significant economic emergencies.

UsNews and World ReportReuters

The announcement of the new tariffs coincided with a significant legal setback for Trump, as the Supreme Court had recently struck down a broad range of tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This ruling clarified that the law did not grant him the expansive powers he had claimed. Notably, no previous U.S. president had utilized the IEEPA or Section 122 to impose tariffs, marking this situation as unprecedented.

UsNews and World ReportReuters

The outcome of this legal challenge could have far-reaching implications for U.S. trade policy and the authority of the executive branch in imposing tariffs. The plaintiffs argue that allowing the tariffs to remain could set a precedent for future administrations to exploit similar legal frameworks without sufficient oversight from Congress.

Reuters

White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the tariffs, stating, "President Trump is lawfully using the executive powers granted to him by Congress to address our country’s balance of payments crisis." This statement underscores the administration's commitment to its tariff strategy as a means of addressing trade imbalances.

UsNews and World Report

While the states and businesses argue that the tariffs are not legally justified, the Trump administration insists on their legality based on existing statutes. The debate centers on the interpretation of "balance-of-payments deficits," with no consensus on the definition or applicability to current economic conditions.

Reuters

• "If we have a successive series where there's always tariffs in place, that's a problem." — Brian Marshall, Oregon's Attorney

UsNews and World Report

• "President Trump is lawfully using the executive powers granted to him by Congress to address our country’s balance of payments crisis." — Kush Desai, White House Spokesperson

UsNews and World Report