The U.S. Court of International Trade on Friday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify imposing sweeping 10% global tariffs, raising questions about the president's unilateral authority to levy import fees on most U.S. trading partners [1]. Section 122 allows a president to impose import fees of up to 15% for 150 days in response to 'large and serious' balance-of-payments deficits or risks to the dollar's value [1].
During nearly two hours of arguments, the three-judge panel focused on whether the persistent U.S. trade deficits cited by Trump constituted the type of crisis Congress intended when it passed the law in the mid-1970s. The judges questioned if a large trade deficit alone was sufficient grounds for invoking Section 122, with one judge stating, 'I don’t think it is, and I think Congress didn’t think it is' [1]. Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate argued that Congress gave presidents broad discretion to assess economic conditions, referencing other indicators such as the current account deficit and net international investment position cited by Trump [1].
The legal challenge comes weeks after 24 attorneys general sued the administration, claiming Trump's use of Section 122 was an illegal attempt to 'sidestep' a Supreme Court ruling in February that blocked his use of another emergency economic powers law for imposing 'Liberation Day' tariffs [1]. Shumate maintained that both IEEPA and Section 122 were available to Trump and that Section 122 could have been invoked earlier [1].
Lawyers for the challengers argued that upholding the administration’s interpretation would turn Section 122 into an all-purpose trade weapon, potentially expanding presidential trade powers beyond congressional intent [1].
CONCLUSION
The Court of International Trade's skepticism toward Trump's emergency tariff authority signals potential legal obstacles for the administration's trade policy. If the court blocks the tariffs, it could limit the president's ability to unilaterally impose import fees, impacting future trade negotiations and market expectations. The outcome of this legal fight may shape the boundaries of executive power in U.S. trade policy.