A U.S. trade court is set to hear a legal challenge Wednesday against President Donald Trump’s tariffs on imports from 60 trading partners, with opponents arguing that the measures exceed presidential authority and attempt to revive tariff powers previously rejected by the Supreme Court.
The case before the U.S. Court of International Trade challenges tariffs imposed on countries and trading blocs including China and the European Union over what the Trump administration says are failures to prevent imports produced using forced labour.
Four small businesses and 25 Democratic-led states are challenging the policy, arguing that the administration does not have the legal authority to impose the sweeping duties.
A three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by Trump and former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, will hear arguments in the case.
The judges are not expected to issue a decision from the bench. A written ruling is expected at a later date.
Supreme Court previously restricted tariff powers
Tariffs have become a major component of Trump’s foreign and economic policy, with the administration using import duties as leverage in negotiations with trading partners.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major setback to that strategy on Feb. 20 when it struck down most of Trump’s broadest tariffs.
The court found that emergency economic powers did not give the president authority to unilaterally impose tariffs across all U.S. trading partners.
Following the ruling, Trump immediately introduced a temporary 10 per cent global tariff using a different federal law.
When those temporary duties expired, the administration turned to another legal authority to introduce the forced-labour tariffs now facing scrutiny in court.
Tariffs cover more than 99 per cent of imports
The tariffs were introduced in late July and range from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent.
Together, the measures apply to more than 99 per cent of goods entering the United States from the affected trading partners.
Three lawsuits challenging the policy have been consolidated into a single case before the Court of International Trade in New York.
The plaintiffs argue that the law being used by the administration requires specific findings of unfair trade practices for individual countries before tariffs can be imposed.
They allege that the administration failed to conduct legitimate country-specific investigations into forced labour and instead used the issue as justification for restoring broad presidential tariff authority after the Supreme Court’s February ruling.
Trump administration defends investigations
The administration disputes those allegations.
In court filings, government lawyers said officials conducted genuine investigations into whether foreign governments were adequately preventing goods produced through forced labour from entering international supply chains.
According to the administration, those investigations determined that tariffs were justified against each of the 60 trading partners covered by the policy.
The case will test the boundaries of presidential tariff authority months after the Supreme Court restricted Trump’s ability to impose broad duties using emergency economic powers.
The eventual ruling could also have significant implications for the administration’s wider trade strategy, particularly its ability to use tariffs as leverage against a large number of countries simultaneously.
