US trade court rules Trump’s 10% global tariffs unlawful

The US Court of International Trade in New York has ruled that President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, are unlawful, marking a significant setback for his trade agenda.

The decision came in a case brought by small businesses and mostly Democrat-led states, who argued the levies exceeded presidential authority and misapplied statutory criteria, Caliber.Az reports per foreign media.

The ruling raises uncertainty over billions of dollars in import duties already collected.

A divided three-judge panel granted the plaintiffs’ request to invalidate the tariffs, finding that the administration failed to properly justify “balance-of-payments deficits” under the law. However, the court stopped short of issuing a universal injunction, limiting immediate relief to the suing companies and Washington State, as other states lacked standing. Judges Mark A. Barnett and Claire R. Kelly formed the majority, while Timothy C. Stanceu dissented.

Reacting to the ruling, Trump said: “We had two radical left judges who voted against it. So nothing surprises me with the courts. Nothing surprises me. So we always do it a different way. We get one ruling and we do it a different way.” He added that the administration would continue pursuing alternative legal avenues.

The ruling was welcomed by some small businesses and trade groups that brought the case, who said they had been hit by rising costs. Basic Fun Inc. chief executive Jay Foreman said: “it took a lot of guts and chutzpah” for small firms to challenge the tariffs, noting his company had paid more than $100,000 in duties.

A coalition representing importers said: “Today’s ruling is more positive news for the small businesses that have been crushed by these illegal taxes,” adding that courts “should have gone further and blocked collection of these tariffs during any appeal.”

The court’s majority said the administration failed to demonstrate that statutory requirements under Section 122 were met, particularly around “balance-of-payments deficits”. Judges concluded the proclamation relied on trade deficits rather than the legally defined standard.

The decision also referenced arguments from challengers that the order was “riddled with omissions and mischaracterisations” regarding the meaning of the law. In its justification, the administration had described a “large and serious” trade deficit.

In earlier litigation, officials had also acknowledged that trade deficits “are conceptually distinct from balance of payments deficits.” The ruling could be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

By Aghakazim Guliyev