Court Strikes Down Trump's Replacement Tariffs; A Minor, Temporary Setback, With Sec 301 Tariffs Coming

After the close on Thursday, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled to invalidate Trump's latest set of universal 10% tariff imposed two months ago under Sec. 122. The administration will quickly appeal this decision before it takes effect May 12. If the case follows the same pattern as the challenge to the IEEPA tariffs last year, a higher court might soon stay this ruling and leave the tariffs in place pending a longer review.  

As the tariffs are due to expire July 24, even if the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) eventually rules against these tariffs, there is a good chance a full judicial review will take long enough that the tariffs will remain in effect until the administration replaces them with new tariffs under Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices) and Sec. 232 (national security).

As a reminder, Section 122 tariffs were always a stopgap: by statute, they can only be in place for 150 days, so they’ll expire on July 24, 2026. Investigations by the US Trade Representative under Section 301 are widely expected to wrap up before then, clearing the way for permanent replacement tariffs.

That said, if the ruling survives appeal, the government will likely have to refund unlawfully collected duties, adding to the nearly $170 billion already owed as a result of the Feb. 20 decision.

Key Points: 

1. The CIT ruling was a split decision, with two Democratic-appointed judges granting summary judgment against the administration’s position and one Republican-appointed judge dissenting, favoring a full review of the case instead. This is in contrast to the CIT’s earlier ruling last year, in which a panel of one Democratic- and two Republican-appointed judges unanimously granted summary judgment against the IEEPA tariffs. 

2. The CIT ruling gives the administration 5 days to rescind the tariffs, and requires that importers be paid refunds plus interest. We expect the administration to immediately appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), as it did following the CIT’s IEEPA ruling. In that instance, the CAFC stayed the CIT ruling within a day, leaving the tariffs in effect, and then took 3 months to rule on the case. That ruling was then appealed to SCOTUS, which took another 6 months to rule. As the Sec. 122 tariffs expire July 24 and cannot be extended without an act of Congress, an eventual SCOTUS ruling against these tariffs looks unlikely to come before expiration. That said, if courts ultimately rule against the use of Sec. 122 to impose these tariffs after they have expired, importers could collect refunds beyond IEEPA refunds they will start to receive in coming days.

3. The Sec. 122 tariffs are worth slightly more than 4% on the effective tariff rate (this is lower than the 10% headline rate due to exemptions for products and most imports from Canada and Mexico), and account for slightly less than half of the new tariffs since the start of 2025 that remain in effect. They are likely generating customs duty collections of around $11-12bn per month (not annualized), or around $55-60bn total if they remain in effect for the full 5 months. 

4. Regardless of how courts ultimately decide this case, the ruling should have no bearing on the administration’s longer-term ability to impose tariffs under Sec. 232 (national security) or Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices), which the White House has signaled will replace the Sec. 122 tariffs. The authority to impose tariffs under those laws is well-tested, unlike the IEEPA and Sec. 122 tariffs, and customs duties have been collected continuously under both authorities since the first Trump administration. 

5. The US Trade Representative is currently conducting investigations under the Section 301 trade enforcement authority. These investigations are widely seen as setting the stage for permanent replacement levies that will largely replicate the tariff rates in place before the Feb. 20 court ruling.

6. The court limited relief to three plaintiffs representing a small fraction of total US imports. Other importers may now bring suit, but we expect the administration to quickly appeal and seek a stay of the ruling. The split decision invalidating the tariffs is relatively narrow.

• If the ruling stands, relief is limited to the importers who brought suit — two private firms and Washington State. The court dismissed claims from other non-importer parties for lack of standing. Additional importers could — and likely will — seek relief with their own lawsuits.
• The court also sidestepped the broader question of whether the US currently faces a “fundamental international payments problem”, the authorized purpose of Section 122. Instead, it found the administration’s stated justification — trade and current account deficits — was not an appropriate stand-in.