CHICAGO, April 13, 2026 — The 10% tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump hours after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his first round of import duties are being challenged in lawsuits filed by 24 states and several importers of consumer goods.
The 10% surcharge, now being levied on virtually all imports into the United States, was imposed in February under the Trade Act of 1974. The law empowers the White House to set tariffs unilaterally for 150 days when the sales volume of imported goods so far exceeds the level of U.S. exports that national security is at risk.
Representatives of the Trump Administration argued Friday before the U.S. Court of International Trade that the trade gap has hit that critical level.
The attorneys for plaintiffs in the suit brought by Oregon and other states countered with assertions the 10% tariffs have little if anything to do with a trade deficit or an alarming imbalance of commerce. Rather, they contended, the White House is invoking the ‘74 law because the Supreme Court ruled the justification for the first round of tariffs, the International Emergency Executive Powers Act (IEEPA), did not grant Trump the authority to impose tariffs.
The trade deficit for 2025 was $901.5 billion, little changed from the prior year’s tally, according to government figures. However, none of Trump’s tariffs were in force for more than a fraction of the year.
Ironically, White House attorneys had argued before the Supreme Court that the IEEPA was used as justification for the first round of tariffs because the Trade Act did not apply. Their comments before the International Trade Court on Friday, as reported by several media representatives present, directly contradicted that earlier argument.
A separate lawsuit filed by an advocacy group called the Liberty Justice Center similarly challenges the basis cited by the White House for the 10% tariffs. The Administration says the surcharges are necessary because of “large and serious United States balance‑of‑payments deficits,” the group said in a statement. “But the United States is not facing such a crisis."
That suit was filed on behalf of Basic Fun!, the maker of My Little Pony and Tonka toy trucks, and Burlap and Barrel, a supplier of spices to supermarkets and food stores.
Trump indicated that he’s undeterred by the efforts to check his use of tariffs. Almost simultaneous with Friday’s arguments, he revealed a plan to impose 50% tariffs on all goods imported from China if the Communist nation provided weapons or other support to Iran during its war with the U.S.
The 10% tariffs currently in place are lower than the duties Trump announced in his first round of tariffs, which he started implementing in April 2025 and fully imposed in mid-fall. Some of those duties were in triple digits.
Trump has said since February that he intends to raise the 10% universal tariff to 15% across the board, but has not said when the increase will come.
Tariffs are a foundation of the economic policy Trump has set forth in sporadic pronouncements. His stated rationale is that the tariffs will push the cost of imported goods significantly above the price of domestically produced similar items, giving American producers a boost and encouraging foreign manufacturers to shift their production to the U.S.
He has also contended that revenues from the tariffs could be sufficient to fund the federal government, eliminating the need for income taxes.
His argument pivoted on the tariffs being paid by exporters to the U.S. rather than being passed along to American consumers. But Yale Budget Lab, an economic thinktank and researcher, has estimated that the 10% duties would cost a typical American household at least $1,200 during the first year they were in place.
The food-away-from-home industry has voiced concerns that the tariffs will limit access to critical imported supplies like coffee and cocoa. Many contend consumers are already balking at the high prices they’re seeing on menus, a result of cost passalongs not necessarily related to the tariffs.
The International Trade Court has not indicated when the three-judge panel hearing the new tariff challenge will issue its rulings.
A fourth judge from the court is overseeing the development of a plan for reimbursing parties that paid Trump’s first series of tariffs. The refund amounts to about $165 billion.
Attend our April 22nd webinar on tariffs, the Make America Healthy Again movement and other regulatory issues affecting the industry. More information is available here.