The United States Court of International Trade struck down Trump administration tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, although appeals are expected and questions remain about the scope of the ruling and whether importers ultimately will receive refunds.
Craig Brightup, of the International Housewares Association’s government affairs office in Washington, D.C., noted that any refunds on tariffs paid under Section 122 authority await an appeals process that may return the tariffs to the Supreme Court.
Brightup said the administration will most likely ask for a stay of the trade court ruling and appeal the decision, using the dissent made by Judge Timothy Stanceu, a George W. Bush appointee, in the 2-1 ruling and even the dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court IEPPA ruling to bolster its case.
“I can’t imagine the administration won’t quickly appeal,” Brightup said.
According to Brightup, either the appeals court or SCOTUS may find for the administration, as the Section 122 tariffs would seem to be on stronger legal grounds than the IEPPa tariffs. However, if the ruling stands, the plaintiffs, which included businesses and state governments, will probably ask the courts to rule for refunds, with a real probability of success. However, Brightup notes that the split decision makes the likelihood of an overturn somewhat less likely, as does the use of the more solid Section 122 justification.
Another complication is timing; the appeals process may still be ongoing by the time the Section 122 tariffs expire. The administration has been pushing to complete Section investigations by July 24 to shift tariffs under that authority. The administration will likely accelerate the Section 301 process harder now to get the tariffs it’s working on in place before anything disrupts the Section 122 duties. Of course, given the recent history, the Section 301 impositions will generate their own legal challenges, but Brightup said he thinks the 301 tariffs are on firmer legal ground.
According to Congress.gov, the official website for U.S. federal legislative information, four Section 301 investigations were still open as of March 2026. The investigations related to various practices by Brazil and the implementation of the commitments made under an earlier agreement by the People’s Republic of China, two investigations into excess industrial capacity, which include 14 countries and the European Union, and action on forced labor practices, including 59 countries and the European Union. In the meantime, tariffs on imports from China imposed in 2018 under Section 301 remain in effect.
Brightup pointed out that the excess-capacity investigation now stands at 15 countries and the EU. He added that the Section 301 tariffs appear to rest on stronger legal ground than those imposed under Section 122. Although lawsuits seem inevitable, grounds cited in the Section 301 investigations, including trade agreement violations and forced labor practices, may prove more difficult to challenge.
Brightup also noted that the Court of International Trade ruled two to one that the Trump administration’s 10% global tariff under Section 122 was illegal because the law’s requirements were not met. The court determined the administration improperly used trade deficits as justification, even though Section 122 was written to address true balance-of-payments crises rather than standard trade imbalances. Judges concluded Congress intended Section 122 as a narrow emergency tool for rare financial crises, not as a broad authority to impose global import tariffs.
At the same time, Brightup emphasized that the ruling was limited in scope, applying only to the plaintiffs in the case rather than to importers broadly. As a result, the tariffs remain in effect for most importers while appeals proceed. Any stay sought by the administration from an appeals court likely would apply universally, covering both plaintiffs and other importers subject to the tariffs.
