The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that a 10% [1] global tariff imposed by President Donald Trump is illegal.
The decision creates a significant legal hurdle for the administration's trade strategy by questioning the statutory authority used to implement broad import taxes. It signals a potential shift in how federal courts view the executive branch's power to address trade deficits through tariffs.
The court in New York City issued the 2-1 [1] ruling on May 7, 2026 [4]. The judges determined that the tariffs, which were established in February, violated Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act [3].
According to the court, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act [3] was not intended to be used as a tool to address trade deficits. Because the administration relied on this specific provision to justify the 10% [1] levy, the court found the measure lacked the necessary statutory authority to remain in place [3].
The Trump administration has since appealed the decision [5]. This legal challenge follows a series of disputes over the legality of replacement tariffs and their impact on international commerce.
While the court ruled the tariffs illegal, the ruling included a narrow block on certain implementations [3]. The administration's appeal seeks to overturn the 2-1 [1] decision and reinstate the full authority to collect the global tariff.
“The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that a 10% global tariff imposed by President Donald Trump is illegal.”
This ruling highlights a growing tension between executive actions on trade and the limits of statutory authority granted by Congress. By determining that the 1974 Trade Act cannot be used to target trade deficits, the court has narrowed the legal pathways the administration can use to impose unilateral tariffs without new legislation. The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the executive branch maintains broad discretion over import taxes or must adhere to stricter legislative constraints.
