Efforts by Donald Trump to overhaul US trade policy are once again running into legal resistance. Shortly after the Supreme Court invalidated his broad “Liberty Day” tariffs, his administration moved to impose a new set of import duties—only to see those measures quickly challenged in court as well.
Taking a different legal route this time, Trump introduced a universal 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This shift came after the Court rejected his earlier reliance on emergency powers, ruling that such authority could not justify sweeping tariffs of that scale. Section 122, which has rarely been invoked in recent decades, permits temporary measures to address balance-of-payments concerns. However, applying it in this situation has sparked significant legal debate.
The new tariffs are now the subject of two cases before the Court of International Trade, with hearings expected in April. Lawyers argue that the administration has once again exceeded its legal authority, maintaining that Section 122 does not provide such expansive powers. They caution that stretching the statute in this way could erode constitutional boundaries and introduce instability into global trade markets.
The administration is preparing to defend its position. Even if the courts ultimately uphold the tariffs, relying on less frequently used legal provisions may complicate future trade actions. Ongoing litigation could also slow implementation and limit the government’s ability to respond swiftly in future disputes.
At the same time, the consequences of the earlier, overturned tariffs are still unfolding. In a separate ruling, the Court of International Trade directed US Customs and Border Protection to reimburse duties collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While the decision formally applies to a single company, the judge indicated that it should extend broadly to all affected importers.
The scope of those repayments is considerable. Estimates suggest that roughly 330,000 importers and more than 53 million import transactions were impacted. Customs officials have acknowledged that they currently lack the infrastructure to process refunds on that scale, though they believe it could be managed within about 45 days if system improvements are implemented.
Altogether, these developments highlight the increasing legal challenges surrounding Trump’s trade strategy. As courts continue to examine these policies, legal constraints are becoming just as critical as economic objectives in shaping the administration’s approach.