Trump Tariff Strategy Faces Fresh Legal Blow as U.S. Court Rejects Global 10% Duties

A major pillar of President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff agenda has come under renewed legal pressure after a U.S. trade court ruled against the administration’s attempt to impose a universal 10% tariff on global imports.

The ruling marks the second major judicial setback for Trump’s trade policy after earlier legal challenges surrounding the administration’s use of emergency economic powers. Analysts say the decision could significantly weaken the legal foundation of Trump’s broader “America First” tariff strategy ahead of the U.S. presidential election.

The United States Court of International Trade ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration unlawfully used Section 122 of the Trade Act to justify the worldwide tariff measure. The court said the administration failed to meet the legal requirements necessary to invoke the emergency tariff authority and permanently blocked tariff collection from the importing companies involved in the lawsuit.

Judges also ordered the U.S. government to refund previously collected tariffs with interest, a decision that could increase financial pressure on the administration while encouraging additional legal challenges from other importers.

The case has drawn particular attention because it directly questions the scope of presidential authority over trade policy. Legal experts noted that the decision goes beyond a procedural dispute and instead places meaningful limits on how far a president can unilaterally expand tariff powers.

Trump had previously turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act after the Supreme Court of the United States reportedly rejected his administration’s attempt to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement reciprocal tariffs earlier this year. Section 122 allows a U.S. president to impose temporary emergency tariffs for up to 150 days in response to severe balance-of-payments problems.

However, the court concluded that the administration improperly treated chronic trade deficits as equivalent to a balance-of-payments crisis. Judges argued that the existence of a large trade deficit alone does not justify the use of emergency economic powers under the statute.

Trade attorneys and policy analysts believe the ruling could have broader implications for future unilateral tariff actions by U.S. administrations. For Trump, whose economic platform heavily emphasizes tougher trade measures and domestic manufacturing protection, the decision may complicate efforts to revive large-scale tariff policies if reelected.

The court’s order currently applies only to the importers directly involved in the lawsuit. Judges declined requests to immediately extend the ruling to all importers nationwide, meaning the broader tariff framework remains temporarily in place while additional legal and political battles continue.

U.S. media outlets described the decision as another legal fracture in Trump’s trade strategy. Some analysts also noted that the Section 122 tariff program itself was already scheduled to expire in July, fueling speculation that the White House had been exploring alternative tariff mechanisms even before the ruling was issued.