The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's 10% global tariffs were not justified under existing trade law [1].

The decision represents a significant legal setback for the administration's trade policy, challenging the authority used to implement broad import taxes. While the court found the tariffs unlawful, the immediate impact is limited to a small group of plaintiffs.

The court issued a 2-1 decision on May 7, 2026 [2]. The judges determined that the across-the-board 10% tariffs [3] were not justified under the 1970s trade law that governs such measures [4]. These tariffs had been imposed in February 2026 [5].

Despite the ruling against the legality of the tariffs, the court issued a narrow block on their enforcement [1]. The ruling specifically protects two companies, and the state of Washington, from the tariffs [6]. Other entities and imports remain subject to the fees for now.

The legal challenge was brought by the state of Washington and two companies who argued the tariffs exceeded presidential authority [6]. By citing the 1970s trade law, the court indicated that the administration failed to meet the legal requirements necessary to justify a global tariff of this scale [4].

The administration has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling or modify the tariff structure to comply with the court's interpretation of the law. The narrow nature of the block means the majority of the global tariffs continue to be collected while the broader legal implications are debated.

“The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's 10% global tariffs were not justified under existing trade law.”

This ruling creates a legal precedent that limits the executive branch's ability to impose broad, across-the-board tariffs without specific justification under decades-old trade statutes. Although the enforcement block is narrow, the court's finding that the tariffs are fundamentally unlawful provides a legal roadmap for other states and corporations to challenge the 10% global levy in future litigation.