Federal court strikes down Trump's second round of global tariffs

The Court of International Trade struck down a second round of global tariffs ordered by President Trump, after his earlier import taxes were outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Objective Facts

A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 in favor of businesses that sued, saying the levies are "invalid, and the tariffs imposed on plaintiffs are unauthorized by law." After the Supreme Court ruled in February that President Trump exceeded his authority in ordering double-digit tariffs on virtually everything the U.S. imports, Trump sought to replace the import taxes using a different law that only authorizes tariffs in response to large and persistent balance-of-payments deficits, but the trade court ruled that condition does not currently exist, so the replacement tariffs are not warranted. The plaintiffs said Section 122 was misapplied because the law was designed to address "balance of payment" issues, such as currency imbalances and other economic issues, rather than to resolve a trade deficit, as Mr. Trump envisioned. The court's decision directly applied only to three plaintiffs — the state of Washington and two businesses, spice company Burlap & Barrel and toy company Basic Fun!. The new tariffs were time limited in any case and set to expire in July, while the administration continues to explore other options to impose tariffs using different statutes.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets and Democratic lawmakers framed the Court of International Trade ruling as a decisive legal victory against what they characterized as an unlawful presidential overreach. Rep. Brendan Boyle, Pennsylvania Democrat and ranking member on the House Budget Committee, stated: "Once again, a federal court has confirmed what we already knew: Trump's tariffs are an illegal tax on hardworking Americans." According to Truthout, "A panel of federal judges ruled Thursday that US President Donald Trump's sweeping 10% tariffs on most imports are unlawful, another major legal blow to the centerpiece of the Republican president's economic agenda, with the Court of International Trade finding in a 2-to-1 ruling that Trump violated the law when he unilaterally enacted the 10% import taxes." Congressman Boyle emphasized that "These tariff taxes are raising costs, hurting our economy, and making Trump's cost-of-living crisis even worse for families already stretched thin," calling the ruling "a victory for every American who has been forced to pay more because of Trump's nationwide sales tax." Left-leaning coverage focused on the economic harm to consumers and small businesses. The Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project noted that the Trump administration's "actions on trade have not delivered on his promises to quickly balance trade and revitalize U.S. manufacturing," with U.S. manufacturing employment declining by 82,000 jobs since Trump's return to the White House. Democratic Senator John Larson argued: "The Supreme Court already rebuked the president's costly tariffs, but Donald Trump sees our Constitution as a mere suggestion to follow, and not the law of the land," and "As families are squeezed by sky-high grocery bills and gas prices, his latest round of tariffs is only pouring salt in the wound." Left-leaning coverage emphasized the separation of powers and constitutional constraints on executive authority while largely omitting discussion of Trump's stated strategic goals for tariffs or the administration's arguments about economic necessity. The coverage prioritized consumer impact and cost-of-living concerns.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-leaning coverage and Trump administration officials defended tariffs as a legitimate policy tool and challenged the court's legal reasoning, emphasizing the administration's intent to continue pursuing tariffs through alternative legal authorities. Trump blamed the decision on "two radical left judges," while U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Friday the Trump administration expects to prevail in the appeal, "although he also expressed confidence in earlier tariffs that were ultimately invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court." According to IBTimes, "The president also signaled that his administration would continue pursuing its tariff strategy despite the latest court setback, saying 'We always do it a different way. We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.'" Right-leaning outlets framed the ruling as a narrow procedural victory for plaintiffs rather than a definitive rejection of tariff authority. According to U.S. News & World Report, "The Trump administration on Friday appealed a court ruling that found a 10% global tariff imposed in February was not justified under a 1970s trade law." The Trump administration signaled it "still plans broader tariffs on major trading partners by invoking a third law that has withstood numerous legal challenges, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which covers unfair trade practices." According to former senior U.S. Commerce official Ryan Majerus, "The administration will appeal this decision but it will continue collecting most of the 10% tariffs under Section 122 until July 24, at which point we will likely have permanent Section 301 tariffs in place." Right-leaning coverage downplayed the legal setback by emphasizing the administration's multiple remaining legal pathways to impose tariffs and the temporary nature of the Section 122 tariffs being challenged.

Deep Dive

The May 7 Court of International Trade ruling represents the second major legal defeat for Trump's tariff strategy this year, following the Supreme Court's February 2026 decision striking down IEEPA-based tariffs. The specific legal dispute centers on the definition of "balance-of-payments deficits" under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 permits temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments crises, but the law requires clear statutory grounds. The court's majority found that the Trump administration conflated "balance-of-payments deficits" (a technical economic term involving currency reserves and settlement mechanisms) with "trade deficits" (the difference between imports and exports). The administration's own economic team had acknowledged this distinction in court filings. The dissenting judge argued the president had broader interpretive authority, but the 2-1 majority rejected the administration's reading as exceeding the statutory language. Both perspectives have merit within their respective legal and policy frameworks. The left correctly identifies that the court's ruling enforces statutory constraints on executive power—a foundational principle of constitutional law requiring Congress to clearly delegate significant authority. The Constitution vests taxing power in Congress, and courts have consistently held that the president cannot improvise legal authorities. The right's point that alternative statutory authorities remain available is also accurate: Section 301 investigations, Section 232 national security tariffs, and other provisions provide genuine legal pathways. However, the pattern of successive court defeats suggests that whatever authorities remain, they too face legal vulnerability. The administration's public statements indicate it views courts as obstacles to be circumvented rather than constraints to be accepted. Looking forward, the critical unresolved questions are whether Section 301 tariffs or other alternatives will survive legal challenge, and whether Congress will exercise its constitutional role by voting to extend or authorize tariffs beyond temporary authorities. The Section 122 tariffs expire July 24, 2026—before the midterm elections. A congressional vote on tariff extension would force Republican lawmakers to publicly defend an unpopular policy. The administration's strategy appears to be imposing tariffs through temporary executive authorities and appealing any adverse rulings rather than seeking explicit congressional authorization, which itself reflects a view of Congress as an inconvenience rather than a co-equal branch.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Federal court strikes down Trump's second round of global tariffs

The Court of International Trade struck down a second round of global tariffs ordered by President Trump, after his earlier import taxes were outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

May 7, 2026· Updated May 9, 2026
What's Going On

A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 in favor of businesses that sued, saying the levies are "invalid, and the tariffs imposed on plaintiffs are unauthorized by law." After the Supreme Court ruled in February that President Trump exceeded his authority in ordering double-digit tariffs on virtually everything the U.S. imports, Trump sought to replace the import taxes using a different law that only authorizes tariffs in response to large and persistent balance-of-payments deficits, but the trade court ruled that condition does not currently exist, so the replacement tariffs are not warranted. The plaintiffs said Section 122 was misapplied because the law was designed to address "balance of payment" issues, such as currency imbalances and other economic issues, rather than to resolve a trade deficit, as Mr. Trump envisioned. The court's decision directly applied only to three plaintiffs — the state of Washington and two businesses, spice company Burlap & Barrel and toy company Basic Fun!. The new tariffs were time limited in any case and set to expire in July, while the administration continues to explore other options to impose tariffs using different statutes.

Left says: Democrats characterized the ruling as confirmation that Trump's tariffs are "an illegal tax on hardworking Americans," framing it as a win for consumers facing inflation and economic hardship.
Right says: Trump reacted to the ruling Thursday night, telling reporters his administration would "do it a different way," signaling the administration will pursue alternative legal authorities to reimpose tariffs rather than accepting the court's decision.
✓ Common Ground
Several voices on the left and right acknowledge the legal complexity surrounding presidential tariff authority and agree that questions about the scope of executive power under different trade statutes remain unresolved.
Both left-leaning and right-leaning observers recognize that the court's ruling applies narrowly to the specific plaintiffs rather than providing blanket relief for all importers subject to Section 122 tariffs.
Critics on each side tend to agree that Trump's sequential attempts to impose tariffs using different legal authorities—first IEEPA, then Section 122, now planning Section 301 investigations—reflect a pattern of seeking to circumvent court rulings rather than accepting legal constraints.
Objective Deep Dive

The May 7 Court of International Trade ruling represents the second major legal defeat for Trump's tariff strategy this year, following the Supreme Court's February 2026 decision striking down IEEPA-based tariffs. The specific legal dispute centers on the definition of "balance-of-payments deficits" under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 permits temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments crises, but the law requires clear statutory grounds. The court's majority found that the Trump administration conflated "balance-of-payments deficits" (a technical economic term involving currency reserves and settlement mechanisms) with "trade deficits" (the difference between imports and exports). The administration's own economic team had acknowledged this distinction in court filings. The dissenting judge argued the president had broader interpretive authority, but the 2-1 majority rejected the administration's reading as exceeding the statutory language.

Both perspectives have merit within their respective legal and policy frameworks. The left correctly identifies that the court's ruling enforces statutory constraints on executive power—a foundational principle of constitutional law requiring Congress to clearly delegate significant authority. The Constitution vests taxing power in Congress, and courts have consistently held that the president cannot improvise legal authorities. The right's point that alternative statutory authorities remain available is also accurate: Section 301 investigations, Section 232 national security tariffs, and other provisions provide genuine legal pathways. However, the pattern of successive court defeats suggests that whatever authorities remain, they too face legal vulnerability. The administration's public statements indicate it views courts as obstacles to be circumvented rather than constraints to be accepted.

Looking forward, the critical unresolved questions are whether Section 301 tariffs or other alternatives will survive legal challenge, and whether Congress will exercise its constitutional role by voting to extend or authorize tariffs beyond temporary authorities. The Section 122 tariffs expire July 24, 2026—before the midterm elections. A congressional vote on tariff extension would force Republican lawmakers to publicly defend an unpopular policy. The administration's strategy appears to be imposing tariffs through temporary executive authorities and appealing any adverse rulings rather than seeking explicit congressional authorization, which itself reflects a view of Congress as an inconvenience rather than a co-equal branch.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning coverage uses morally charged language portraying tariffs as an illegal "tax" and a burden on struggling families, while right-leaning coverage emphasizes the administration's "powerful alternatives" and frames setbacks as procedural rather than fundamental. Trump's characterization of judges as "radical left" in right-leaning coverage contrasts sharply with left-leaning emphasis on constitutional separation of powers and rule of law.