A federal trade court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s temporary 10% global tariff, imposed in February under a national emergency authority, was unlawful. In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade found the administration did not have the legal justification to enact the levies under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The majority concluded the tariffs were “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.” A lone dissenting judge said the statute gives the president broader discretion on tariffs and that it was premature to declare the plaintiffs winners.
The ruling’s immediate practical effect was limited. The court blocked the duty only as applied to the state of Washington and two private importers — identified in court filings as a spice company and a toy company — declining to issue a universal injunction that would have suspended the measure for all importers. The panel rejected a challenge brought by a coalition of 24 states, largely led by Democrats, finding those states lacked standing to obtain blanket relief.
The temporary tariff is expected to expire in July, and the administration may now appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, potentially, to the Supreme Court.
This decision follows a February Supreme Court ruling that struck down an earlier, broader set of sweeping global tariffs the president had imposed in 2025. After that high-court ruling, businesses sought refunds; US Customs and Border Protection reported in March that more than 330,000 importers could be eligible for rebates. The earlier, invalidated tariffs had generated an estimated $166 billion in duties and deposits.
The White House criticized the trade court’s decision. Asked about the ruling, Trump blamed “two radical left judges,” saying, “So, nothing surprises me with the courts. Nothing surprises me. We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.”
The administration now faces a choice: appeal and continue the legal fight, or let the temporary levy lapse as scheduled in July. Either path could prompt further litigation and potentially another Supreme Court review.