Importers assess legal options over Trump tariff ruling

US importers are reviewing whether to file lawsuits to preserve potential refund rights after the Court of International Trade ruled that President Donald Trump’s temporary 10% global tariff was illegal.

The May 7 ruling applied to named plaintiffs challenging the use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose global levies. The court found the tariff invalid and unauthorised by law, but did not issue a universal stay on collection. Relief was granted to two importers, Burlap and Barrel and Basic Fun, and the state of Washington through a complaint linked to the University of Washington.

Other importers now face a more complex decision. The tariff continues to be collected more broadly while the administration appeals, and companies outside the named plaintiffs may need to file separate claims if they want equivalent protection or a stronger route to potential refunds.

Section 122 allows temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days in response to serious balance-of-payments problems. The court rejected the administration’s use of that authority for the global tariff, weakening the legal basis for a measure that has already affected landed-cost calculations across imported goods.

The ruling follows months of tariff volatility for US-linked supply chains. IN Supply covered the broader trade picture in February 2026 Unpacked: Temporary relief, then whiplash, where short-lived tariff relief quickly gave way to renewed cost uncertainty. IN Supply has also covered US tariff threats targeting EU vehicles, with automotive and industrial supply chains again exposed to abrupt policy shifts.

Tariffs sit directly inside landed-cost models, customer pricing, supplier negotiations, inventory valuation, duty drawback, customs entries, and working capital planning. Even a temporary levy can create material exposure when applied across high-volume import programmes, particularly where margins are narrow or contract terms prevent quick price recovery.

The absence of universal relief adds administrative pressure. Importers may need to assess shipment values, duties already paid, future import schedules, protest deadlines, liquidation status, and the cost of legal action relative to potential recovery. Those calculations will vary sharply between large importers, mid-sized manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and businesses with concentrated exposure to a small number of product categories.

The Section 122 tariffs are due to expire on 24 July, but the administration is expected to replace them with Section 301 tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974, a mechanism used in response to unfair trade practices. Importers are therefore dealing with both a legal challenge to the current tariff and the possibility of a new tariff structure with different scope, duration, and product coverage.

Procurement and trade compliance teams are likely to treat the ruling as another prompt to tighten tariff governance. Supplier origin, product classification, customs strategy, routing, inventory timing, bonded warehousing, duty mitigation, and contract language all influence how quickly trade policy changes turn into margin pressure.

Refund and reliquidation processes could also become a major administrative workload if the ruling survives appeal. Importers have already dealt with complex recovery exercises after earlier tariff measures were invalidated, and another round would place additional demands on customs teams, brokers, legal advisers, and finance departments.

The immediate work is practical rather than theoretical. Importers need to identify exposure to Section 122 duties, review legal options, understand filing deadlines, and decide whether to act before the appeal process resolves. The ruling has weakened the legal footing beneath the temporary global tariff, but it has not removed the commercial uncertainty tariffs continue to inject into US-linked supply chains.