Court of International Trade

A U.S. federal court ruled that the government can continue collecting 10% worldwide tariffs while legal challenges proceed. The tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, are set to expire on July 24. A separate court previously found the tariffs illegal, but the Trump administration secured a procedural victory.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection official is set to testify about the government's refund process for $166 billion in tariffs deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. A court judge ordered expanded refunds, but the Justice Department argues only companies involved in lawsuits challenging the tariffs are eligible. The refund process has distributed $20.6 billion so far, with disputes ongoing over eligibility and speed.

The Supreme Court is expected to release opinions on Thursday, followed by a private conference. House Republicans advanced a constitutional amendment to cap the number of justices at nine. The Trump administration announced new tariffs and challenged a court order requiring refunds for illegal tariffs.

Trump faces multiple setbacks including the cancellation of an 'anti-weaponization' fund, Supreme Court rulings against his tariffs, stalled Venezuela and Iran operations, and lack of funding for White House projects. A judge also blocked his attempt to rename the John F. Kennedy Center.

The US Justice Department has announced plans to appeal a judge's order requiring broad refunds of Trump-era tariffs, arguing the judge lacks authority to mandate nationwide refunds for all importers who paid tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), even those who did not sue. The dispute centers on whether a recent Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship limits the scope of such refunds, potentially creating legal uncertainty in an ongoing claims process.

Rodney S. Scott, the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has been ordered to appear before the Court of International Trade next month to address compliance on refunding tariffs.

Just Security maintains a litigation tracker monitoring 803 legal challenges to Trump administration executive actions, with 262 total plaintiff wins and 126 government wins as of the tracking period. The tracker covers major cases including challenges to immigration detention policies, F-1 visa registrations, and tariff policies, with 360 cases currently awaiting court rulings.

The Court of International Trade struck down a second round of global tariffs ordered by President Trump. This decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed Trump's earlier import taxes. The tariffs were part of a trade policy implemented during Trump's presidency.

The Court of International Trade ruled that President Trump's newest round of tariffs were illegal, imposing a 10% across-the-board surcharge set to expire July 24. The trade court's decision is another legal setback for the White House's trade policy. The administration is likely to appeal the decision.

The Court of International Trade has ruled that President Trump's global 10% tariffs are unlawful, concluding that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are not in line with international trade laws. The decision is a significant blow to the Trump administration's trade policies. The court's ruling may have implications for global trade and the US economy.

U.S. businesses can apply for refunds of illegal tariffs starting Monday via a new CBP portal, following Supreme Court and Court of International Trade rulings. The process involves submitting CAPE declarations through the ACE system, with refunds expected within 60-90 days, though eligibility is limited to specific entries in the first phase.

The Court of International Trade expressed skepticism toward President Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify global tariffs, questioning whether trade deficits qualify as 'balance of payments deficits' under the law. Legal challenges persist as the administration faces potential blockage of its tariff policies, with courts and attorneys general debating the scope of presidential emergency powers.

The Court of International Trade showed skepticism toward Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify 10% global tariffs, questioning whether long-term trade deficits qualify as the 'large and serious' balance-of-payments crises Congress intended. Legal challenges persist as the court debates the scope of presidential authority under the statute, with implications for Trump's broader trade policies.