General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's steep global tariff dealt severe court blow
By Matthew Chapman
Published May 7, 2026 5:40 PM ET
President Donald Trump got yet another body blow to his trade agenda on Thursday, as a pair of federal judges ruled his 10 percent global tariff illegal.
"In a split ruling, the Court of International Trade found that Mr. Trump had wrongly invoked a decades-old trade law when he applied those duties in February, almost immediately after his last set of punishing tariffs was struck down by the Supreme Court," reported The New York Times.
The prior set of "reciprocal" tariffs had been implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. However, the Supreme Court determined that the law doesn't authorize the president to unilaterally declare new tariffs without an act of Congress.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-tariffs-2676866695/
orthoclad
(4,808 posts)Consumers pay cost of tariff.
Court says tariff illegal.
Govt refunds tariff costs to corporations.
Taxpayers get stuck for it.
We think Trump suffers a defeat.
rinse and repeat.
Follow the money.
The rodeo clown rides again! Mission accomplished!
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)trump's new replacement tariffs are illegal. These tariffs can only be used when there is a balance-of-payments deficit which is very different from a balance of trade deficit. Since the US is no longer on a currency fixed exchange rate there have not been any balance of payment deficits for a couple of decades. These tariffs will be challenged and trump will lose again
Fascinating National Review post on Trump's latest Tariff gambit. Archive link here (it's pay walled, please don't give them money lol)
— Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z
archive.is/r4Xdf
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/
A trade deficit between the U.S. and a foreign nation occurs, mainly in connection with goods (which is just one aspect of international commerce), when imports are greater than exports. This is not really a problem for a variety of reasons e.g., a trade deficit results in an investment surplus, the U.S. is a major services economy and often runs exported services surpluses that mitigate the imports deficit in goods, etc.
The balance of payments is a broader concept than the balance of trade. It accounts for all the economic transactions that take place between the United States and the rest of the world. Even without getting into every kind of transaction that entails, suffice it to say that foreign investment in the United States, coupled with the advantages our nation accrues because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.
Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.
Its vital to understand why Section 122 was enacted. There was a financial crisis in the late 60s and early 70s under the Bretton Woods system, when the dollar was tied to gold. Foreign countries that held dollar reserves could exchange them for gold at a fixed rate. Meanwhile, our government was spending at a high clip due to the Vietnam War and Great Society programs. This and the obligation to pay out gold put enormous pressure on the dollar. In response, in 1971, President Nixon severed the dollars tie to gold and as several justices recounted in Fridays Learning Resources opinions imposed a temporary 10 percent import surcharge (a tariff) to stabilize the economy......
There is no rationale under Section 122 to impose tariffs. Because President Trump has no unilateral authority to order tariffs, he must meet the preconditions of Section 122 to justify levying them. He cannot. Not even close.