Washington, D.C., May 8, 2026 — A federal court has dealt a major legal setback to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, ruling that his administration’s 10 percent global tariffs were unlawfully imposed. In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade concluded the government did not meet the legal requirements under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the blanket duties.
The levies had been adopted as a follow-up after the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down a broader package of tariffs. The court ordered the administration to stop collecting the 10 percent duties from the companies that brought the suit and to refund amounts already paid by those plaintiffs. For now, that protection applies only to the litigants, but the ruling is widely seen as a significant constraint on the president’s ability to impose sweeping trade measures by executive action.
Section 122 allows a president to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent across import categories without Congress if certain statutory conditions are satisfied. The majority opinion found the administration’s justification deficient, saying the proclamation failed to identify the kind of “large and serious” U.S. balance-of-payments deficits that Congress intended as a prerequisite.
Despite the ruling, the tariffs remain in effect for other importers through July, and the government continues to rely on narrower, industry-specific measures. Administration officials have already begun exploring alternate nationwide tariff options, leaving the broader trade picture unsettled.
President Trump responded to the court setback by signaling he would pursue other avenues to achieve his trade aims, saying he would not be surprised by court decisions and would seek alternative approaches.
Businesses face ongoing uncertainty. Companies eligible for refunds may be able to seek repayment for duties found unlawful, but the reimbursement process is expected to be slow and phased. The timetable for wider refunds and how any future measures might affect reimbursements remains unclear.
This report is based on syndicated coverage and reporting from news outlets; The Tribune publishes the feed as received and does not assume responsibility for its accuracy or completeness.
