The ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the Trump administration’s global trade policies took another turn as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed the continuation of a 10 percent global tariff, impacting three importers [during the appeal](https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/06/federal-appeals-court-keeps-trump-10-percent-global-tariff-in-place-for-three-importers-during-appeal/). This decision follows a recent stay granted by the court, reversing an earlier injunction from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which found the tariff exceeded the president’s statutory authority.
President Trump had initially imposed this surcharge in February, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a clause that had not been used by any president since its inception. The court’s per curiam order allows the government to continue collecting duties from three plaintiffs, identified as the state of Washington, spice importer Burlap and Barrel, and toy manufacturer Basic Fun.
In assessing the stay, the court referenced the key factors from the Nken v. Holder case. These factors include the likelihood of success on the merits, potential irreparable harm to the movant, the balance of injuries, and public interest. The court concluded that the government demonstrated a strong likelihood of success and could face irreparable harm without the stay, particularly as other importers might seek similar relief.
The decision does not finalize the legal interpretation of Section 122, particularly around terms like “balance-of-payments deficit,” showing skepticism toward the trade court’s narrower reading. The appeals court remains unconvinced by the lower court’s view that the definition should be limited to technical economic measures such as liquidity and official settlements.
This legal maneuvering comes after the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which determined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not permit tariffs, thereby nullifying previous duties. However, the Section 122 tariff remains active, set to expire on July 24 unless Congress takes further action. Meanwhile, a coalition of 24 states has launched its legal challenge, underlining the widespread dissatisfaction among domestic stakeholders with the tariff’s imposition.
As the Federal Circuit continues to deliberate, these three plaintiffs must pay the tariff like other importers. However, the appeals court made it clear that this decision should not be interpreted as a final determination, highlighting the complexities of ongoing trade disputes in an uncertain economic landscape.