We always do it a different way. We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.
For the second time in less than a year, a federal court has told a sitting president that the authority to remake American trade policy unilaterally has limits. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that the 10% global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration in February exceeded what the law permits, finding that the White House had misread the statutory language it relied upon. The ruling orders refunds to the states and businesses that challenged the policy, and it deepens a broader constitutional question that courts, Congress, and the executive branch have long left unresolved: where does presidential trade power end?
- A federal trade court has struck down Trump's 10% global tariffs for the second time in months, ruling the administration misapplied the very law it cited as justification.
- The White House confused a trade deficit with a balance-of-payments deficit — a legal distinction the court found decisive, exposing the tariffs as built on a flawed statutory foundation.
- Twenty-four states and multiple businesses sued, and the court ordered refunds with interest, though the ruling's narrow scope leaves other legal challenges still pending.
- Trump dismissed the judges as 'radical left' and signaled the administration will simply pivot to a different legal mechanism — a pattern critics say invites endless litigation.
- With the Supreme Court already having struck down the 'Liberation Day' tariffs and now this second defeat, the administration's ability to reshape trade policy through executive action alone is increasingly in doubt.
President Trump's tariff strategy has run into the courts again. A panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that the 10% global tariffs imposed in February are unlawful, ordering the administration to halt collection and issue refunds with interest to the states and businesses that brought the challenge.
The February tariffs were themselves a second attempt. In April 2025, Trump had imposed sweeping "Liberation Day" duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — only for the Supreme Court to strike them down 6-3. The White House then turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose tariffs for up to 150 days when facing a "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficit.
The trade court found the administration had misread that provision. Section 122 requires a deficit in the nation's overall balance of payments — the full flow of money across borders — but the White House proclamation had focused on the narrower trade deficit and current account deficit. The court, in a 53-page opinion, said the distinction was legally decisive. The two-judge majority was appointed by Barack Obama; the dissenter was appointed by George W. Bush.
The ruling applies specifically to Washington state and the two businesses that sued, leaving the tariffs technically in place for others while further litigation unfolds. Trump, asked about the decision Thursday evening, dismissed the judges and shrugged off the loss. "We always do it a different way," he said — a comment that may be the clearest summary of his administration's legal strategy. Each new attempt, however, is likely to face its own challenge, suggesting the fight over the boundaries of presidential trade authority is far from over.
President Trump's tariff strategy has collided with the courts again. On Thursday, a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that the 10% global tariffs the administration imposed in February are unlawful, ordering the White House to stop collecting them and issue refunds with interest to the parties that challenged the policy.
The tariffs had been hastily assembled in the first place. In April 2025, Trump had issued a sweeping round of duties he called "Liberation Day" tariffs, relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify them. The Supreme Court struck those down in a 6-3 decision, finding that the IEEPA did not grant the president that authority. Days later, in February, the White House tried again—this time using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that allows a president to impose tariffs for up to 150 days when facing what the law calls "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits.
Twenty-four states and a handful of businesses sued, arguing the new tariffs were equally unlawful. The trade court agreed. In a 53-page decision, the judges found that the Trump administration had misread the law. Section 122 requires a deficit in the nation's overall balance of payments—the total flow of money in and out of the country. But the White House proclamation had focused instead on two narrower measures: the trade deficit and the current account deficit. Those are not the same thing, the court said, and the distinction mattered legally. The panel ordered the administration to stop collecting tariffs from Washington state and the two businesses that had sued, and to refund what they had already paid, plus interest. The ruling did not strike down the tariffs universally, leaving the door open for other cases.
Two judges appointed by Barack Obama formed the majority. A judge appointed by George W. Bush dissented. The decision is the second major judicial defeat for Trump's tariff agenda in less than a year, and it comes as the administration is already preparing its next move. The White House has signaled it intends to pursue longer-lasting tariffs through other legal mechanisms, though it first needs to conduct formal investigations into countries' trade practices—a process that takes time.
When asked about the ruling late Thursday, Trump dismissed the judges as "radical left" and suggested the setback would not slow him down. "We always do it a different way," he told reporters. "We get one ruling, and we do it a different way." The comment captured the administration's apparent strategy: if one legal theory fails, try another. But each attempt will likely face its own court challenge, and the pattern suggests a prolonged battle over how much power a president actually has to reshape trade policy unilaterally.
Notable Quotes
Defendants do not explain why they should be permitted to continue the unlawful collection of Section 122 duties from Importer Plaintiffs for the duration of the imposition of such duties.— U.S. Court of International Trade panel
We always do it a different way. We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.— President Trump
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the court say the administration got the law wrong? It seems like a technical distinction.
It is technical, but it matters. The law says the president can act if there's a balance-of-payments deficit—that's the whole picture of money flowing in and out. The White House focused on the trade deficit instead, which is just goods and services. They're related but not identical. The court said you can't just pick the economic measure that fits your argument.
So the administration could have made the same case differently?
Possibly. If they could show an actual balance-of-payments deficit, Section 122 might have worked. But they didn't frame it that way. They went with the narrower measures, and the court caught them.
This is the second time Trump's tariffs have been struck down. Why keep trying?
Because tariffs are central to his economic vision. He believes they protect American workers and manufacturing. The courts keep saying he's using the wrong legal tool, not that tariffs themselves are forbidden. So he's searching for a legal hook that will stick.
Will the next attempt work?
That depends on how carefully the administration constructs it. But every new approach will face a new lawsuit. This isn't over.