Judges Skeptical as Trump’s Latest Tariffs Face Legal Challenge Over Authority

Judges at the Court of International Trade expressed sharp skepticism during a three-hour hearing on whether President Donald Trump can legally impose a 10% global tariff without congressional approval. The tariffs, a follow-up after the Supreme Court struck down an earlier round, hinge on a 1974 statute that supposedly grants the president 150 days of authority to act on “balance of payments deficits.”

But the panel of three judges appeared unconvinced that the Trump administration’s use of this law is legitimate. Brian Marshall, representing 24 states and two small businesses challenging the tariffs, argued the administration is misapplying the statute by conflating “balance of payments deficits” with a simpler “trade deficit.” Judge Timothy C. Stanceu pushed back, noting the law’s language could encompass trade imbalances, indicating the administration’s interpretation might hold water.

The judges also questioned whether the states have standing to sue, with Chief Judge Mark A. Barnett highlighting a lack of clear evidence that states are directly harmed beyond general import purchases. In contrast, the two small businesses—Basic Fun, maker of Care Bears and Lincoln Logs, and Burlap and Barrel, a spice importer—presented more concrete claims tied to the tariffs’ impact on their operations.

The Trump administration’s legal team, led by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, insisted Congress intentionally gave presidents wide latitude to tackle balance of payments issues, citing economic challenges from the early 1970s as precedent. Shumate argued this statute is distinct from other laws like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which courts have previously limited.

No decision was announced, but the tariffs are set to expire in July unless extended by Congress or the courts. Independent analysis from Yale’s Budget Lab estimates these tariffs could cost American families between $760 and $940 if allowed to expire naturally, and up to $1,500 if extended—translating executive power grabs directly into household pain.

This case is emblematic of the Trump administration’s broader pattern of bypassing Congress and stretching legal authority to impose sweeping economic policies without democratic oversight. As the courts weigh in, the stakes are high not just for legal precedent but for the financial burden placed squarely on everyday Americans.