US Courts Repeatedly Strike Down Trump’s Global Tariff Strategies

US Courts Repeatedly Strike Down Trump’s Global Tariff Strategies

Despite these rulings, the administration has maintained that trade deficits constitute a “national emergency”.

RMN News Legal Desk
New Delhi | May 8, 2026

WASHINGTON D.C. – In the latest legal setback for the administration’s trade agenda, the US Court of International Trade ruled that President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs are unjustified. The court determined that the administration’s use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—a law intended for “balance of payments” emergencies—was “misguided” when applied to the trade deficits cited by the President.

While the ruling marks a significant victory for the plaintiffs, the court issued only a narrow injunction. The levies are blocked specifically for the State of Washington and two private companies: toy manufacturer Basic Fun! and spice importer Burlap & Barrel. For all other importers, the 10% duties remain in place while the administration appeals, though they are currently scheduled to expire in July. President Trump criticized the decision, attributing it to “two radical left judges”.

This ruling follows a series of major judicial defeats for the administration’s trade policies over the past year:

• August 2025: A US federal appeals court delivered a massive blow by blocking the majority of Trump’s tariff measures. The court ruled that the President had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), asserting that Congress holds the constitutional power to issue taxes and tariffs. This decision invalidated duties previously imposed on countries including Canada, Mexico, and China.
• May 2025: The US Court of International Trade issued an earlier ruling citing an “overreach of authority”. It determined that IEEPA does not grant the President “unbounded authority” to impose global tariffs, but is instead reserved for enforcing economic sanctions during “exceptional and extraordinary threats”.

Despite these rulings, the administration has maintained that trade deficits constitute a “national emergency”. While the courts have struck down broad duties based on emergency powers, other levies—specifically those on foreign steel, aluminum, and automobiles—remain valid because they were established through a different legal framework involving Commerce Department investigations.

Looking forward, the Trump administration appears to be shifting its legal strategy. With the current 10% tariffs facing expiration and legal challenges, the White House is turning to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The administration has already launched sweeping trade probes into India, China, and the EU under this statute, which covers unfair trade practices and has historically been more resilient to legal opposition.