A U.S. federal appeals court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to continue collecting a 10% global tariff imposed earlier this year, pausing a lower court decision that had blocked enforcement for two importers and the state of Washington.
The ruling effectively overrules a previous order from the Court of International Trade (CIT), which in May had found the tariff “unauthorized by law.” That decision applied only to the two importers and Washington State, all of whom were involved in lawsuits challenging the levy. The federal government appealed the ruling shortly after.
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lifted the injunction while the appeal process continues, allowing tariff collection to proceed in the meantime. The court also questioned the CIT’s interpretation of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, stating that the lower court’s reading “may be incorrect.”
The appeals court said that “the federal government has made a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits [of its appeal],” indicating it believes the administration has a strong chance of ultimately prevailing. Legal commentary has interpreted this as a sign that the court sees merit in the government’s position.
At the center of the dispute is whether the Trump administration met the legal requirements under Section 122, which allows a president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days in response to “balance of payment deficits.” The CIT previously argued that the administration had taken an “expansive reading of the statute,” while the appeals court criticized what it called a “narrow interpretation” of the law.
The appeals court also accepted the government’s argument that blocking tariff collection would cause irreparable harm. However, legal experts emphasize that the case is still ongoing and that no final ruling has been issued.
“This is the strongest signal to date that the Federal Circuit may ultimately uphold the legality of the Section 122 tariffs,” one legal analyst noted, while stressing that the outcome remains uncertain.
The case adds another layer to the wider legal and political battles over President Donald Trump’s tariff policy, including previous measures struck down under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which led the administration to rely on Section 122 as an alternative legal foundation.
