A federal trade court has questioned whether President Trump's 10% global tariffs are legally justified, as judges scrutinise the administration's use of a 1974 law intended for short-term monetary emergencies rather than persistent trade deficits.
A US federal trade court panel has raised serious doubts about the legality of President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on most imports, questioning whether the country’s trade deficit alone justifies such sweeping duties.
During a hearing on Friday, 10 April 2026, at the US Court of International Trade, judges examined lawsuits filed by 24 primarily Democratic-led states and several small businesses contesting the tariffs that began on 24 February.
The challengers contend that Trump’s tariff strategy was designed to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling from just four days before that invalidated his 2025 tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Trump cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits temporary duties lasting up to 150 days to address severe “balance of payments deficits” or prevent imminent dollar depreciation.
Opponents argue the 1974 law was designed exclusively for short-term monetary crises, not persistent trade deficits, which don’t meet the technical definition of “balance-of-payments deficits.”
The lawsuits don’t target other Trump tariffs established under conventional legal frameworks, including recent levies on steel, aluminium, and copper imports.
Earlier, the Trump administration was reportedly planning to revise its steel and aluminium tariff system to simplify compliance for importers while still protecting domestic producers. The proposal would keep a 50% tariff on raw metal imports but lower duties on finished goods made from these materials to 15% or 25%, depending on the product.
