A coalition of 24 states argued that President Trump’s tariffs do not meet the standards of the Trade Act of 1974.
Published May 12, 2026
A U.S. federal appeals court has temporarily put on hold a lower court’s decision blocking President Donald Trump’s 10% tariffs worldwide.
On Tuesday, a U.S. federal appeals court issued a short-term administrative stay while the litigation continues.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The question is whether the tariffs issued under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 fall within President Trump’s authority.
President Trump imposed a steep 10% import tax in January after the Supreme Court struck down a series of far-reaching tariffs that the president had justified using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the IEEPA does not give the president the authority to impose blanket tariffs, as President Trump had argued.
Similar questions have arisen regarding President Trump’s new tariff policy. On Friday, a panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that President Trump did not meet the criteria for new tariffs under Section 122.
“The President’s proclamation does not purport that these necessary conditions have been met,” the lower court’s ruling asserts.
It added that the declaration was “null and void and the duties imposed on the plaintiffs are not recognized by law.”
The appeals court’s decision on Tuesday temporarily halted that ruling to give the White House time to respond.
But the plaintiffs, a coalition of 24 states, argue that President Trump’s tariff campaign is an abuse of executive power. They also point to the downstream effects of having the cost of additional taxes borne by consumers.
“American consumers and businesses ultimately paid the price for the president’s illegal tariff campaign,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement following Friday’s ruling.
The Consumer Price Index report released Tuesday suggested that President Trump’s tariff campaign is being reflected in higher costs of consumer goods.
Prices for clothing and electronics both rose by 0.6%, while prices for toys and furniture rose by 0.8%.
Legal challenges to Tariff 122 are just one hurdle facing President Trump’s tax policy.
Under Section 122, the 10% global tariff is scheduled to expire in July unless extended by Congress. Otherwise, the period is limited to 150 days.
Critics also point to the uncertainty and regulatory complexity of lifting such tariffs.
Tuesday’s suspension comes as refunds of duties levied under IEPPA begin. U.S. Customs and Border Protection plans to pay $35.46 billion in refunds for 8.3 million shipments processed as of Monday.
