Trade Court Rules Against Trump's Global Tariff

International Trade attorney Patrick Childress was quoted in a Washington Post article about the U.S. Court of International Trade's (CIT) ruling that invalidated tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The three-judge panel found the reasons Trump cited for implementing the measures did not match the "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits language used in the statute, rendering the levies legally unjustified. The decision applies only to the plaintiffs and does not provide relief for other companies that have paid import duties, but businesses may file claims to preserve potential refunds, similar to what they have done for the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) duties invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. Mr. Childress explained to Washington Post that the CIT's finding delivers a blow to the government's trade policy plans but emphasized that Section 122 tariffs are by their nature temporary and that ongoing Section 301 investigations will lead to new, more permanent duties.

"For the administration, [this] ruling will be disappointing but not devastating. The Section 122 tariffs have a 150-day time limitation, and thus, they were always meant as a stopgap," he commented.

READ: Trade Court Rules Against Trump's Global Tariff (Subscription required)