{"id":262848,"date":"2026-04-11T17:15:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-11T17:15:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/262848\/"},"modified":"2026-04-11T17:15:11","modified_gmt":"2026-04-11T17:15:11","slug":"federal-court-hears-new-case-against-trumps-latest-global-tariffs-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/262848\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal court hears new case against Trump’s latest global tariffs"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Containers<\/p>\n

Containers are stacked at the Port of Long Beach Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Long Beach, Calif.<\/p>\n

Damian Dovarganes \/ AP<\/p>\n

The centerpiece of President Donald Trump\u2019s economic policy \u2014 sweeping taxes on global imports<\/a> \u2014 is under legal assault again. <\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of International Trade<\/a>, a specialized court in New York, heard oral arguments Friday in an attempt to overturn the temporary tariffs Trump turned to after the Supreme Court in February struck down his preferred choice \u2014 even bigger, even more sweeping tariffs.<\/p>\n

In his first attempt to impose global tariffs, the president last year invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), using the law to declare America\u2019s longstanding trade deficit a national emergency and to impose double-digit worldwide taxes on imports to combat it. He interpreted the law broadly to justify tariffs of whatever size he wanted, whenever he wanted to impose them, on whatever country he wanted to target. <\/p>\n

The Supreme Court struck those tariffs down<\/a> on Feb. 20, saying IEEPA did not authorize the use of tariffs to counter national emergencies.<\/p>\n

But Trump had alternatives to IEEPA. The quickest option was Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose global tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, after which congressional approval is needed to extend them. After his defeat at the Supreme Court, Trump quickly announced 10% Section 122 tariffs. He said he\u2019d raise them to the maximum 15% but hasn\u2019t yet done so. The tariffs are scheduled to expire July 24.<\/p>\n

Related: Oregon businesses still in tariff limbo after Supreme Court strikes down Trump\u2019s sweeping import taxes<\/a><\/p>\n

Two dozen states and some businesses quickly challenged the new tariffs in court. Friday\u2019s hearing lasted more than three hours as a three-judge panel tried to assess a provision that had never been used before to impose tariffs and to analyze congressional decisionmaking from more than a half century ago.<\/p>\n

The judges intensely questioned lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the government about what certain terms mean including what precisely the term \u201cbalance-of-payments deficits\u201d meant when it was used in the Trade Act of 1974 and what it means today.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the judges asked tough questions of all sides and were genuinely trying to find out what Congress meant when it passed section 122,\u201d said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation for Liberty Justice Center, which represents some of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

\u201cI would be stunned if the challengers prevail,\u2019\u2019 said trade lawyer Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding law firm and a former U.S. trade official.<\/p>\n

The trade court\u2019s judges, he said, are likely to defer to the president and allow the Section 122 tariffs to stay, considering that they will expire in three and a half months anyway. \u201cI just don\u2019t see them sticking their neck out on this one, given how temporarily it\u2019s in place and how much discretion these courts give to the president,\u2019\u2019 he said.<\/p>\n

Section 122 is aimed at what it calls \u201cfundamental international payments problems.\u2019\u2019 At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them.<\/p>\n

The provision arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.<\/p>\n

Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president had needed to invoke IEEPA because Section 122 did \u201cnot have any obvious application\u2019\u2019 in fighting trade deficits, which it called \u201cconceptually distinct\u2019\u2019 from payments problems.<\/p>\n

Awkwardly for the plaintiffs challenging his use of the temporary tariffs, the trade court itself wrote last year in its own decision striking down IEEPA tariffs that Trump didn\u2019t need them because Section 122 was available to counter trade deficits.<\/p>\n

Related: 7 key things to know about Trump\u2019s tariffs after the Supreme Court decision<\/a><\/p>\n

Last May, the trade court issued a decision striking down Trump\u2019s IEEPA tariffs about two weeks after hearing oral arguments in the case. Attorney General Dan Rayfield of Oregon, one of the states challenging Trump\u2019s latest tariffs, is eager for another speedy ruling. \u201cWe are hopeful to get a result sooner than later,\u2019\u2019 he said. \u201cWhen the president continues to do an unlawful action and take money out of the pockets of Americans, we want a response as quickly as we can from the courts.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n

____<\/p>\n

Paul Wiseman reported from Washington. <\/p>\n

AP Writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Containers are stacked at the Port of Long Beach Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Long Beach, Calif. Damian…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":262849,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[115413,131,133,132],"class_list":["post-262848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-long-beach","tag-lawsuit-trade-economy-oregon","tag-long-beach","tag-long-beach-headlines","tag-long-beach-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262848\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/262849"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}