Media Coverage
Source: Law360
Media Coverage
Press Contacts: Erik Cummins, Matt Hyams, Taina Rosa, Olivia Meyer
03.03.26
While President Donald Trump has said the trade agreements struck in response to tariffs that have now been invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court will be kept, navigating the terms of those deals in the aftermath is already proving complicated.
Pillsbury partner Daniel Porter told Law360 that the trade deals may be the "trickiest" part of navigating the court's Feb. 20 ruling, which deemed the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful.
The ruling raises questions about the immediate validity of the agreements, as well as whether the deals' duty rates can be imposed under a different statutory authority and survive in the long term.
Without the IEEPA tariffs, importers could in some cases be subject to even higher duties on certain goods than they would have faced under the terms of the trade deals because of how a new temporary 10% worldwide tariff interacts with traditional duty rates.
Trump ordered the tariff, authorized under Section 122 of the Trade Act, hours after the justices struck down the IEEPA tariffs.
The 10% duty "goes on top of normal customs duties, and for a lot of things that might be equal or lower than the rate that was agreed to, which was under the IEEPA duties, but sometimes it's higher," Porter said.
This could upset trading partners who negotiated lower rates for their exported goods to the U.S., he said.
Read the full story here.