US Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Ruling Blocking Trump’s 10% Global Tariff
Lead: Court Grants Temporary Stay on Tariff Blockage
A US federal appeals court issued a short‑term administrative stay, pausing a lower‑court decision that had declared President Donald Trump’s 10 percent global tariff unlawful.
Appeals Court Issues Short‑Term Stay on Section 122 Tariff Ruling
The stay was granted on Tuesday, allowing the case to proceed while the White House prepares a response. The underlying dispute centers on whether the tariff, imposed under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, falls within the president’s statutory authority.
Trump introduced the tariff in January after the Supreme Court invalidated a prior set of tariffs justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A recent panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled 2‑1 that the Section 122 proclamation failed to meet required conditions, deeming it “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.”
Consumer Price Index Shows Small Uptick Amid Tariff Debate
A consumer price index report released on the same day noted modest price increases linked to the tariff:
- Apparel and electronics prices rose by 0.6 %.
- Toys and furniture prices rose by 0.8 %.
US Customs and Border Protection reported refunds totaling $35.46 bn on 8.3 million shipments processed as of Monday, reflecting refunds for tariffs imposed under IEEPA.
Legal Challenge Highlights Executive Power Limits and Consumer Cost Concerns
The plaintiffs, a coalition of 24 states, argue that the tariff campaign exceeds executive authority and burdens American consumers and businesses. Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown emphasized that “American consumers and businesses… have ultimately paid for the president’s illegal tariff campaign.”
Future of the 10 % Global Tariff Remains Uncertain Ahead of July Deadline
Under Section 122, the tariff is set to expire in July unless Congress extends it; its maximum term is capped at 150 days. The appeals court’s temporary stay does not resolve the substantive legal questions, leaving the tariff’s fate dependent on further judicial rulings and potential congressional action.