Court poised to block Trump tariffs again, teeing up new fight
The Court of International Trade on Friday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump's use of a little-known emergency trade law to justify his sweeping, 10% global tariffs — teeing up...
By Fox News · Fox News
The Court of International Trade on Friday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump 's use of a little-known emergency trade law to justify his sweeping, 10% global tariffs — teeing up a familiar, if technically new, legal fight focused on when and how a sitting president can act to unilaterally impose steep import fees on most U.S. trading partners. During nearly two hours of arguments, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade grappled with Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — an emergency provision designed to address "large and serious" balance-of-payments problems — and its applicability in today's economy. Under Section 122, a president has the authority to unilaterally impose import fees of up to 15% on U.S. trading partners for a period of 150 days, to respond to large and serious "balance of payments deficits," or instances that risk immediately depreciating the power of the dollar. Arguments before the court hinged on interpretation of the "balance of payments deficits" phrase, and whether the persistent U.S. trade deficits cited by Trump in invoking Section 122 aligned with the kind of crisis that Congress had envisioned when it passed the trade law in the mid-1970s. TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA Members of the three-judge panel appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's arguments, and questioned whether Congress intended the statute to apply to specific instances of international currency pressures, rather than long-running trade imbalances. "Are you really saying that a large trade deficit alone is sufficient?" the judge asked Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate, adding, "I don’t think it is, and I think Congress didn’t think it is." Congress, Shumate argued, had provided presidents with broad discretion to assess economic conditions, and to identify what "balance of power" deficits warrant emergency intervention. Shumate also ticked through a list of other ec…