The United States Court of International Trade has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s across-the-board 10% import tariff is illegal.
A three-judge panel ruled 2–1 that the Trump administration failed to provide a valid legal basis under a 1970s trade law to justify the tariffs. The majority found the measure was “not authorised by law” and therefore invalid. However, the dissenting judge argued that the president should have broader discretion in matters relating to tariffs.
The Trump administration announced in February this year a 10% baseline tariff on most imports into the United States, as a follow-up measure after a broader “Liberation Day” global tariff plan was struck down by the Supreme Court. The policy was originally intended to last 150 days, expiring in July.
The case was brought by a group of small U.S. businesses, which challenged the government’s authority to impose the tariffs. The court ruled that the decision currently applies only to the plaintiffs, meaning other importers must continue paying the tariffs until the policy expires.
The court also ordered the government to implement the ruling within five days and to refund tariffs already paid by the plaintiffs.
This marks the second major legal setback for Trump’s tariff agenda in recent months. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled 6–3 that Trump’s sweeping “reciprocal tariffs” on more than 180 countries were unlawful, finding that he had misapplied legislation intended only for national emergencies.
Commentary:
This ruling not only rejects the 10% tariff policy itself, but also highlights the role of the judiciary in constraining and balancing presidential executive power. It serves as a check against the use of broad or vague justifications to impose tariffs unilaterally, bypassing congressional oversight and expanding executive authority in ways that weaken institutional checks and balances.
However, the legal battle is not yet over. If the Trump administration decides to appeal, the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court again. The final outcome may not only affect international trade partners, but could also reshape the long-term boundaries of presidential power over trade and tariff policy in the United States.