WASHINGTON STATE — The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the temporary 10% global tariffs imposed by President Trump under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 were unlawful and harmed businesses. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by 24 states and businesses challenging the legality of the duties.

Trump imposed the 10% global tariff in February under Section 122, which permits the president to impose a temporary 10% duty for 150 days. The court's ruling applies only to two businesses and the state of Washington among the plaintiffs, leaving most U.S. businesses still owing the 10% tariff on most imported goods.

"President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress to address our balance of payments crisis," White House spokesman Kush Desai said. "The Trump administration is reviewing legal options and maintains confidence in ultimately prevailing."

Stephen Brown, chief North America economist at the investment advisory firm, said the practical impact of the decision was limited. The average effective U.S. tariff rate on imports remains 7.2%.

"Given the narrow nature of the Court of International Trade's ruling and the fact that Section 122 tariffs are due to expire at the end of July anyway, none of this has any immediate implication for the U.S. tariff rate," Brown said.

Blake Harden, a trade policy expert at Ernst & Young, said importers should not change course based on the ruling and should track any Section 122 duties they pay in case they become entitled to refunds. She said she expects the Trump administration to appeal very swiftly.

"They have to keep doing what they've been doing. If I am a business today, for practical purposes, nothing changes today compared to yesterday," Harden said.

In March, the Trump administration announced investigations into foreign nations' trade practices under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to retaliate unilaterally against countries engaging in unfair trade practices. The Trade Act requires the federal government to investigate a country's trade practices before imposing tariffs or other trade restrictions.

"This decision reinforces that 301 is the tool they are most likely to rely upon and have the best chance at a durable tariff regime. I think 301 is the name of the game for them moving forward," she said.

Brown said the decision highlights judicial pushback that the administration is likely to face when implementing Section 301 tariffs against 60 countries, and raises the risk that the administration will fail to fully replace revenue lost from IEEPA tariffs. The Supreme Court struck down U.S. tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a February ruling, leaving the federal government owing importers an estimated $175 billion in tariff refunds plus interest. U.S. Customs and Border Protection launched a portal where importers can submit refund claims.