A federal trade court struck down President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to impose broad global tariffs on Thursday, delivering another setback to a cornerstone of his trade agenda and injecting fresh uncertainty into markets and businesses navigating shifting US trade policy.
The US Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that Trump’s 10% blanket tariffs on imports were not authorized under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the legal provision the administration relied on after the Supreme Court earlier invalidated a separate round of tariffs imposed under emergency powers laws.
Reuters reported that the court’s decision came in a 2-1 ruling in favor of small businesses that challenged the tariffs, arguing the administration had overstepped its authority in seeking to revive sweeping import duties after prior legal defeats.
The Wall Street Journal said the court determined the administration failed to meet the conditions required under the 1974 trade statute, which permits temporary tariffs only under limited circumstances tied to serious balance-of-payments issues or threats to the US dollar. Judges rejected the administration’s position that long-running trade deficits justified the measures.
Trump introduced the tariffs in February following a Supreme Court ruling that dismantled an earlier set of tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The replacement duties were initially set at 10%, with Trump later threatening to raise them to 15%.
The latest decision is expected to intensify legal and political scrutiny surrounding the administration’s trade strategy and could ultimately send the dispute back to the Supreme Court if the government pursues an appeal.
The tariffs had been scheduled to remain in effect through July under the temporary authority granted by the Trade Act.
The case is part of a broader wave of legal challenges targeting Trump-era tariff measures, as businesses, importers and state governments continue pursuing relief from trade-related costs and tariff liabilities.
Choice anxiety, prestige bias, and the temptation to make selections based on outsourced confidence are just some of the parallels between investing and the world of wine tasting.
Regulators found Bank of America's monitoring software had a known flaw Merrill left uncorrected for years.
While AI has become a go-to research tool for affluent investors, new HSBC research suggests human advisors remain the deciding voice when investment decisions are made.
A 5-4 ruling preserves the Federal Reserve's independence for now, but the legal fight over presidential removal power is far from settled.
For years, large firms have been facing penalties and questions from regulators over interest rates for clients’ cash accounts.
Dan Biagini of American Equity says the steady decline of pensions, longer lifespans and a reset in interest rates are rewriting how advisors build retirement income
Direct indexing is on pace to outgrow ETFs and mutual funds. Northern Trust's Ken Lassner explains why the advisors who get it wish they had started sooner.
