US Trade Court to Hear Challenge Against Trump’s Global Import Tariff

A US trade court is set to hear arguments on Friday over the legality of a 10 percent global import tax introduced by Donald Trump, in a case that could have wide implications for the administration’s trade policy.

The tariffs, which came into effect on February 24, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 mostly Democratic-led states along with two small businesses. The plaintiffs argue that the measure bypasses a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court that struck down many of Trump’s earlier tariffs.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade in New York is scheduled to hear the case at 10 a.m. Eastern Time. The hearing is expected to focus on whether the administration acted within its legal authority when imposing the sweeping import duties.

Tariffs have become a central part of Trump’s economic and foreign policy agenda during his second term in office. The administration maintains that the new duties are a lawful response to the country’s persistent trade imbalance, as the United States continues to import more goods than it exports. Officials argue that such measures are necessary to protect domestic industries and stabilise the economy.

The tariffs were introduced under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for a limited period in response to significant balance-of-payments issues or to prevent a sharp decline in the US dollar.

However, the states and businesses challenging the policy contend that this authority is intended only for short-term economic emergencies. They argue that ongoing trade deficits do not meet the legal threshold required to justify such action. The lawsuits claim that the administration’s interpretation of the law expands presidential power beyond what Congress intended.

The legal challenge follows a major setback for the administration earlier this year, when the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a range of tariffs. The court found that the law did not grant the president the broad authority he had claimed.

Notably, no previous US president has used either that law or Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act in this way. The current cases do not address other tariffs introduced under more established legal frameworks, including duties on steel, aluminium and copper imports.

The outcome of Friday’s hearing could shape the future of US trade policy and clarify the limits of presidential authority in imposing tariffs without congressional approval.