Federal court hands win to Trump in war over tariffs * WorldNetDaily * by WND Staff
A federal court has decided the U.S. government is allowed to continue collecting a 10% worldwide tariff imposed in February as the court fight over the agenda continues.
It was described as a procedural win for the administration of President Donald Trump, and that’s because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said Trump’s case is “likely to succeed on the merits.”
The tariffs were announced by the president after the Supreme Court last winter struck another tariff plan, those announced on “Liberation Day.”
The new charges were imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a section that had not before been used to justify import taxes.
It allows the president authority to impose worldwide tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days, and then an extension would need approval from Congress.
The section addresses “payments problems” and the fight is over whether that includes trade deficits as the president has explained.
A lower court, the Court of International Trade in New York, recently agreed with small business interests that sued in ruling they were not allowed.
The Federal Circuit issued an order allowing President Trump’s tariffs under Section 122 to continue pending appeal. https://t.co/DRuKlZa8XC pic.twitter.com/Zf7IB7Hkvb
— Brett Shumate (@AAGShumate) June 11, 2026
The newest opinion, unsigned, said, “We conclude that the federal government has made a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.”
Democrats, of course, had sued.
The Hill said lawyers for the plaintiffs expressed disappointment.
While the lower court claimed Congress intended to solve issues related to the fixed exchange rate system, which the U.S. moved away from decades ago, the appeals court said that may be wrong.
“Given that the legislative history contains ample support for the federal government’s proposed gloss, we do not agree that the legislative history provides a clear indication that Congress intended the CIT majority’s narrow interpretation nor that it is the best reading,” the opinion said.