US trade court hearing tests Trump’s 10 percent global tariff authority, as states push to block move under old trade law dispute

A United States trade court on Friday reviewed the legality of a 10% global import tariff imposed by President Donald Trump. The case has been filed by a coalition of 24 mostly Democratic-led states along with two small businesses, who argue that the tariff bypasses a prior US Supreme Court ruling that had already struck down most of Trump’s earlier tariff measures. The new tariffs came into effect on February 24.

The hearing is being conducted before a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade. The central issue before the court is whether the administration acted within its legal authority when introducing the new global tariffs, or whether it exceeded limits set by existing trade laws and judicial precedent.

The lawsuit filed by 24 states and two small businesses seeks to block the 10% tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

The plaintiffs argue that the tariffs should not be allowed to continue and should be blocked rather than allowed to expire automatically after the standard 150-day period. According to Oregon’s lawyer Brian Marshall, allowing repeated cycles of tariffs would effectively enable the administration to keep tariffs in place indefinitely by invoking different laws in succession.

Marshall told the judges that “[If] we have a successive series where there’s always tariffs in place, that’s a problem,” highlighting concerns about continuous tariff enforcement through overlapping legal authorities.

The legal challenge also focuses on the statute used to justify the tariffs. Brian Marshall argued that the authority being used is outdated and was originally intended to address dollar stability issues during the 1970s, when the US dollar could still be exchanged for gold reserves stored at Fort Knox.

He further stated that the law was designed to deal with significant “balance-of-payments deficits,” and not to regulate routine trade deficits. According to the plaintiffs, the administration is misapplying the statute to justify broader trade restrictions than originally intended.

The Trump administration has defended the tariffs, stating that they are a lawful response to a persistent trade deficit. The government argues that the United States imports more goods than it exports, creating a long-term imbalance that requires executive action.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “President Trump is lawfully using the executive powers granted to him by Congress to address our country’s balance of payments crisis.”

The administration imposed the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days in cases involving “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or to prevent imminent depreciation of the dollar.

The states and small businesses argue that Section 122 is intended only for short-term monetary emergencies. They maintain that routine trade deficits do not meet the legal definition of “balance-of-payments deficits,” and therefore cannot justify the use of emergency tariff powers.

The dispute also comes in the backdrop of a significant legal setback for the administration. On February 20, the same day the tariffs were announced, the US Supreme Court struck down a broad range of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court ruled that the law did not grant the authority the president had claimed.

The lawsuits currently under review do not challenge all tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Tariffs implemented under more traditional legal frameworks, including those on steel, aluminum, and copper imports, are not part of the present case.

It is also noted that no US president prior to Trump has used either the IEEPA or Section 122 to impose tariffs in this manner. The court’s decision in this case will therefore further clarify the boundaries of executive authority in trade policy and the application of emergency economic laws.