Federal court rules against Trump's new global tariffs

Federal court strikes down Trump's 10% global tariffs as illegal under trade law, narrowing relief to specific plaintiffs.

Objective Facts

A split three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade found the 10% global tariffs illegal in a 2-1 decision, ruling that Trump overstepped the tariff power Congress had allowed the president under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs are "invalid" and "unauthorized by law," the majority wrote. The court's decision directly blocked the collection of tariffs from three plaintiffs—the state of Washington and two businesses, spice company Burlap & Barrel and toy company Basic Fun!. The new tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, were set to expire July 24. If the administration appeals the decision, as expected, it would first turn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, and then, potentially, the Supreme Court.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets highlighted the court's ruling as validation of Democratic arguments that Trump exceeded his authority. Democratic lawmakers and the Democratic National Party called for the federal government to issue refunds to households for roughly $130 billion in import duties collected, with Democratic messaging framing the situation as Trump stealing money through illegal tariffs. Democratic politicians seeking office, including former Sen. Sherrod Brown who is running for Ohio's Senate special election and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, seized on refunds as campaign messaging, with Pritzker invoicing Trump for $8.7 billion or $1,700 per Illinois family. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries emphasized that the trade deficit had not been meaningfully closed and that consumers had borne the costs, while NPR commentator Mara Liasson noted Democrats' likely midterm message would be: "Trump made you pay more and it wasn't even legal." Left-leaning coverage emphasized that the court decision vindicated small business plaintiffs and cast the rulings as assertions of constitutional limits on executive power. Left-leaning coverage has downplayed or not emphasized the administrative complexity of implementing refunds or the challenges in extending relief beyond the narrow group of plaintiffs in the case, instead focusing on Trump's immediate attempt to impose replacement tariffs under different legal authority as evidence of bad faith.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-leaning coverage and Trump himself emphasized the complexity of alternative legal avenues and the administration's determination to continue tariff policy. Trump blamed the court decision on "two radical left judges," while U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer signaled confidence that the administration would prevail on appeal despite having expressed similar confidence in the IEEPA tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. Trump stated his response directly: "We always do it a different way. We get one ruling, and we do it a different way." The administration immediately continued pursuing investigations into whether trading partners were overproducing goods and whether 60 economies adequately prohibited trade in forced-labor products, signaling plans to impose tariffs using different statutory authority. However, Republican coverage and statements have been noticeably muted compared to Democratic attacks, with some moderate Republicans appearing cautious about publicly defending tariffs given polling showing public unpopularity. Right-leaning coverage has emphasized the narrowness of the court's relief (applying only to three plaintiffs) and the administration's legal flexibility, while downplaying the repeated judicial losses and the broader pattern of courts striking down Trump's tariff initiatives across multiple legal theories.

Deep Dive

The May 2026 Court of International Trade decision represents the second major judicial rejection of Trump's tariff regime in four months, but the ruling's actual practical impact is significantly narrower than its legal holding. The court found that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—which allows tariffs up to 15% for 150 days in response to "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits—does not authorize the 10% global tariffs Trump imposed in February after the Supreme Court struck down his broader IEEPA-based tariffs. The 2-1 majority concluded the administration misinterpreted "balance-of-payments deficit" by relying on current-account measures that Congress did not contemplate when passing the law in 1974, while the dissenting judge argued the statute grants the president broader discretion. Critically, the court granted relief only to the three named plaintiffs rather than issuing a universal injunction blocking collection from all importers, a decision that reflects both the court's caution about granting broad relief and the narrowness of standing doctrine in trade litigation. What each side gets right and overlooks: Democrats correctly identify that the court decision reaffirms constitutional limits on executive power to tax and that tariffs function as regressive taxes on consumers and businesses. However, left-leaning coverage tends to overlook that the court's relief is limited to three plaintiffs and that similar narrow holdings in the February Supreme Court decision left open other statutory pathways—a reality that has come to pass as Trump announced a third wave of tariff investigations under Section 301 and other authorities. The right correctly notes the narrowness of the court's injunction and the existence of alternative legal tools the administration can pursue, but it downplays the pattern of repeated judicial losses across different legal theories, each striking down tariffs as exceeding statutory authority. The Trump administration's characterization of the judges as ideologically motivated avoids engaging with the court's specific statutory interpretation argument about what Congress meant by balance-of-payments deficits in 1974—a weakness that undermines credibility with jurists focused on textual interpretation. What to watch next: The immediate question is whether the Federal Circuit will grant the administration's emergency stay request, allowing tariff collection to continue while appeals proceed. A temporary stay was granted on May 13, pausing the CIT's enforcement order while the appeals court considers a longer-term stay. If the administration loses at the Federal Circuit, Supreme Court review is expected, potentially creating another extended period of legal uncertainty. Separately, the scope of relief beyond the three named plaintiffs remains unresolved—trade lawyers expect other importers to file similar suits seeking broader refunds, potentially flooding the trade court system with claims. The administration continues pursuing alternative tariff authorities under Section 301 and is conducting investigations that could yield new tariff proclamations by summer 2026. Politically, Section 122 tariffs are set to expire July 24 unless Congress extends them, forcing GOP lawmakers to take direct votes on tariff policy during the midterm election year—a development that could fracture Republican unity if moderate members fear tariffs hurt their districts.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Federal court rules against Trump's new global tariffs

Federal court strikes down Trump's 10% global tariffs as illegal under trade law, narrowing relief to specific plaintiffs.

May 7, 2026· Updated May 17, 2026
What's Going On

A split three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade found the 10% global tariffs illegal in a 2-1 decision, ruling that Trump overstepped the tariff power Congress had allowed the president under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs are "invalid" and "unauthorized by law," the majority wrote. The court's decision directly blocked the collection of tariffs from three plaintiffs—the state of Washington and two businesses, spice company Burlap & Barrel and toy company Basic Fun!. The new tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, were set to expire July 24. If the administration appeals the decision, as expected, it would first turn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, and then, potentially, the Supreme Court.

Left says: Democrats frame Trump's tariffs as theft, arguing "Donald Trump stole your money with his illegal tariffs — and you paid higher prices on everything from housing to groceries." They push for full refunds and aim to make the issue central to their 2026 midterm campaign.
Right says: Trump attacked the decision as ideologically motivated, while his Trade Representative expressed confidence in appealing the ruling. The administration signaled it will pursue alternative legal pathways to impose tariffs.
✓ Common Ground
Both sides acknowledge that the court's 2-1 decision leaves the temporary tariffs in place for all other importers while any appeal by the Trump administration plays out.
Several commentators across the political spectrum, including some Republicans, recognize that Section 122 tariffs must end in 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them, a requirement that will force members of the House and Senate to take responsibility for votes on tariffs just months before the 2026 midterm elections.
Trade lawyer Dave Townsend of Dorsey & Whitney stated the ruling will open the door for more companies to request that tariffs be thrown out and that any payments they have made be refunded, with other importers likely to ask for a broader remedy that applies to more companies, though the case could also reach the Supreme Court.
Objective Deep Dive

The May 2026 Court of International Trade decision represents the second major judicial rejection of Trump's tariff regime in four months, but the ruling's actual practical impact is significantly narrower than its legal holding. The court found that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—which allows tariffs up to 15% for 150 days in response to "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits—does not authorize the 10% global tariffs Trump imposed in February after the Supreme Court struck down his broader IEEPA-based tariffs. The 2-1 majority concluded the administration misinterpreted "balance-of-payments deficit" by relying on current-account measures that Congress did not contemplate when passing the law in 1974, while the dissenting judge argued the statute grants the president broader discretion. Critically, the court granted relief only to the three named plaintiffs rather than issuing a universal injunction blocking collection from all importers, a decision that reflects both the court's caution about granting broad relief and the narrowness of standing doctrine in trade litigation.

What each side gets right and overlooks: Democrats correctly identify that the court decision reaffirms constitutional limits on executive power to tax and that tariffs function as regressive taxes on consumers and businesses. However, left-leaning coverage tends to overlook that the court's relief is limited to three plaintiffs and that similar narrow holdings in the February Supreme Court decision left open other statutory pathways—a reality that has come to pass as Trump announced a third wave of tariff investigations under Section 301 and other authorities. The right correctly notes the narrowness of the court's injunction and the existence of alternative legal tools the administration can pursue, but it downplays the pattern of repeated judicial losses across different legal theories, each striking down tariffs as exceeding statutory authority. The Trump administration's characterization of the judges as ideologically motivated avoids engaging with the court's specific statutory interpretation argument about what Congress meant by balance-of-payments deficits in 1974—a weakness that undermines credibility with jurists focused on textual interpretation.

What to watch next: The immediate question is whether the Federal Circuit will grant the administration's emergency stay request, allowing tariff collection to continue while appeals proceed. A temporary stay was granted on May 13, pausing the CIT's enforcement order while the appeals court considers a longer-term stay. If the administration loses at the Federal Circuit, Supreme Court review is expected, potentially creating another extended period of legal uncertainty. Separately, the scope of relief beyond the three named plaintiffs remains unresolved—trade lawyers expect other importers to file similar suits seeking broader refunds, potentially flooding the trade court system with claims. The administration continues pursuing alternative tariff authorities under Section 301 and is conducting investigations that could yield new tariff proclamations by summer 2026. Politically, Section 122 tariffs are set to expire July 24 unless Congress extends them, forcing GOP lawmakers to take direct votes on tariff policy during the midterm election year—a development that could fracture Republican unity if moderate members fear tariffs hurt their districts.

◈ Tone Comparison

Democratic framing uses accusatory language like "Donald Trump stole your money with his illegal tariffs," focusing on consumer impact and portraying tariffs as illegitimate taxes. Trump's response frames the decision through ideological attack, blaming "two radical left judges" rather than engaging with the court's statutory interpretation, and emphasizing administrative determination to pursue alternative approaches.