President Donald Trump's bold trade agenda has just collided with a major legal roadblock. On Thursday, a federal panel struck down his 10 per cent tariff on imported goods, ruling that the administration far exceeded its legal authority and abruptly halting one of its most aggressive economic tools.
The split decision delivers a heavy blow to the White House and its wider economic strategy. The ruling effectively stops the president from sidestepping Congress to impose sweeping new trade restrictions.
The administration initially applied these duties in February after the Supreme Court blocked a previous set of levies. Officials viewed this broad measure as a quick fix.
They hoped it would buy enough time to design a permanent framework for higher rates. The latest defeat means the federal government now faces mounting pressure to return immense sums to domestic importers.
A comprehensive refund process is already underway for the roughly £131 billion ($166 billion) collected under the previously invalidated, sweeping measures.Processing these enormous financial returns presents a serious logistical hurdle for federal agencies.
The president originally announced these specific duties on 20 February. If the government loses a likely appeal, itmust completely reimburse businesses for this subsequent round of tariffs.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the court decision. Further legal actions remain pending as officials review the judicial order.
Following the initial Supreme Court defeat, the administration attempted to reinstate the taxes using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This obscure legislative provision had never been utilised before this year.
Current laws do allow the executive branch to set tariffs of up to 15 per cent for a maximum of 150 days. But there is a catch, because the legislation strictly reserves this special power for genuine financial emergencies.
The statute requires the presence of 'large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits'. It also mandates situations involving 'fundamental international payments problems'.
Source: International Business Times UK
