Goldman says Trump tariff ruling near-term impact limited as appeal looms

Goldman Sachs expects the Trump administration to appeal the CIT's tariff ruling before May 12 and a higher court to stay it, leaving the 10% duties likely intact until their July 24 expiry. Summary: Goldman Sachs expects the Trump administration to appeal the Court of International Trade's ruling against the 10% Section 122 tariffs before the decision takes effect on May 12, per the Goldman research note Goldman anticipates a higher court will stay the ruling and leave the tariffs in place pending a longer review, following the same pattern seen during the challenge to IEEPA tariffs last year, according to the note The 10% tariffs are due to expire on July 24 regardless of the legal outcome, meaning their effective remaining life is limited even without court intervention, per Goldman Sachs Goldman warned that even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the administration, the White House is likely to replace the struck-down tariffs with new duties under Section 301, covering unfair trade practices, or Section 232, covering national security, according to the note A definitive ruling against the administration could result in a second round of refunds to importers later this year or in 2026, per Goldman Sachs The Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 against the 10% tariff the Trump administration imposed two months ago under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows duties for up to 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits, per the earlier ruling Goldman Sachs has told clients in a note that the Court of International Trade's ruling against the Trump administration's 10% global tariffs is unlikely to deliver meaningful near-term relief, with the bank expecting a swift appeal and a higher court stay that would keep the duties in place for the foreseeable future. The Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 earlier this week that the 10% tariff, imposed by President Trump two months ago under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, was not legally justified. The ruling was brought by small businesses that argued the administration had used the 1970s trade law inappropriately, and the court agreed, finding the statutory basis did not support the kind of broad-based trade deficit the White House cited as its justification. The decision was a significant legal setback for the administration, but Goldman's analysis suggests the practical consequences may be far more limited than the headline verdict implies. The bank's base case is that the administration will move to appeal before May 12, the date on which the ruling is due to take effect, and that a higher court will grant a stay of the decision pending a fuller review. Goldman noted that this trajectory closely mirrors what occurred when the administration's IEEPA-based tariffs faced a legal challenge last year, a case in which the courts ultimately left the duties in place throughout the review process. If that pattern repeats, importers should expect no change to the tariff environment in the near term. The July 24 expiry date of the Section 122 tariffs adds a further dimension to Goldman's analysis. Because the duties are time-limited by statute to 150 days, they are due to lapse in any case before a full judicial review is likely to conclude, which further reduces the practical significance of the court's ruling in the immediate term. Goldman also pointed to the administration's available fallback options as a reason to temper expectations of lasting tariff relief. Even if the Supreme Court were ultimately to rule against the White House, the bank warned that the administration would likely introduce replacement tariffs under alternative legal authorities, specifically Section 301, which covers unfair trade practices, and Section 232, which covers national security. Both statutes have been used extensively by the Trump administration and have survived legal scrutiny, giving the White House a well-established route to maintain import duties regardless of