New judicial coup for and its commercial policy. The United States Court of International Trade This Thursday, it blocked the 10% global tariff that the former president imposed last February on most imported products when he considered that he “incorrectly” used an old trade law to justify the measure.
The ruling, issued from New York, concludes that the Trump Administration exceeded legal limits by applying taxes in a practically generalized way to products from almost all countries.
The court decision represents a new setback for the Republican president’s tariff strategy, especially after another similar package had already been previously annulled by the US Supreme Court.
On this occasion, Trump had resorted to a little-used provision of the 1974 Trade Act, known as “section 122,” of 10%.
However, the court considers that this rule only allows temporary and very specific measures linked to serious imbalances in the balance of payments or problems of international financial stability.
Furthermore, remember that the legislation itself sets clear limits: tariffs cannot exceed 15% and they can only be maintained for a maximum of 150 days unless expressly authorized by Congress.
A conflict still open
Although the ruling represents a victory for the sectors that had appealed the measure, the judicial conflict is far from over. According to American media such as The New York Times, The Trump Administration already planned to appeal the decision.
The tariff began to be applied on February 24 and, in theory, was to expire on July 23 unless Congress approved an extension.
But the problem for the US Government could be much greater if the judicial defeat ends up being consolidated. According to estimates cited in the United States, Washington could be forced to return the revenue collected through these levies, a figure that is around $166 billion.
Tariff policy has been one of Trump’s great economic hallmarks since his return to the White House, especially in his attempt to strengthen American industry and put commercial pressure on rival countries.
However, its critics have long questioned both the economic impact of these measures and the expansive use that the former president has turned into legal tools originally designed for exceptional situations.
The ruling now reopens an uncomfortable debate for the Administration: to what extent the president can use extraordinary trade powers without going through Congress.
