Recommended Free Tools
No tariff appeal appears on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s published calendar for October 5, 2026. The calendar, revised October 1, does not verify the claim that an appeals court is hearing a tariff-legality case today. The next argument date or decision date for the separate Section 122 appeal has not been established in the available case updates.
Is the appeals court hearing the Trump tariff case today?
There is no tariff appeal listed on the Federal Circuit’s published October 5 calendar. That means the “today” hearing claim is not supported by the official schedule reviewed. It does not establish when the Section 122 appeal will next be argued or decided; the case updates available from the Oregon Department of Justice and the litigants do not give a later merits date.
Several different tariff disputes are in play. The Supreme Court has already decided the question of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A separate appeal concerns temporary tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. New challenges to Section 301 tariffs are another track.
Did the Supreme Court strike down Trump’s tariffs?
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Court’s syllabus states: “Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The ruling addresses tariffs imposed under that statute; it is not a ruling on every tariff authority or the separate Section 122 and Section 301 disputes.
#1 Best Overall
The Court issued different procedural outcomes in the two cases before it. In Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, No. 25–250, it affirmed the Federal Circuit judgment. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24–1287, it vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Those outcomes should not be conflated.
What is the separate Section 122 appeal about?
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows limited tariffs to address balance-of-payments deficits. The dispute is whether its reference to “fundamental international payments problems” reaches the administration’s asserted basis of ordinary trade deficits. The Oregon Department of Justice describes the plaintiffs’ position as a challenge to the administration’s use of the statute under the circumstances cited in the President’s proclamation.
The Court of International Trade ruled against the challenged Section 122 tariffs on May 7, 2026, in a case involving Washington state and businesses Burlap and Barrel and Basic Fun. On June 11, the Federal Circuit granted the government a stay pending appeal. The Associated Press reported that the stay allowed collection of the temporary 10% worldwide tariffs to continue while the challenges proceeded. AP also reported that Section 122 permits tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days before congressional approval would be needed to extend them; that legal limit is distinct from the temporary 10% rate at issue.
AP reported that the trade-court majority called the tariffs “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.” The Federal Circuit’s later stay meant that the trade-court judgment was not then blocking collection while the appeal proceeded.
Are the 10% tariffs still in effect?
No. The plaintiffs’ case page says the Section 122 tariffs expired on July 24, 2026. Their expiration does not mean the appeal ended: the plaintiffs say they continue to seek complete relief, including refunds.
Can importers get tariff refunds?
Refunds are an unresolved remedy issue in the available case information. The plaintiffs’ case page says they seek refunds, but it does not establish which importers qualify, what amounts might be available, or how any refund would be handled. Importers should not treat the pending appeal as a guarantee of reimbursement.
How do the IEEPA, Section 122, and Section 301 cases differ?
| Tariff authority | Legal posture | Status described in the available updates |
|---|---|---|
| IEEPA | Supreme Court decision, February 20, 2026 | The Court held that IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs. It affirmed the judgment in V.O.S. Selections and vacated and remanded Learning Resources for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Section 122, Trade Act of 1974 | Trade-court judgment stayed pending a Federal Circuit appeal | The challenged temporary tariffs expired July 24, 2026; the plaintiffs’ case page says litigation continues, including over complete relief and possible refunds. |
| Section 301, Trade Act of 1974 | New challenges reported in July 2026 | These are separate cases, not the Section 122 appeal. Axios reported allegations that the administration used Section 301 to create a broad tariff regime and the government’s position that the tariffs target foreign failures to block forced-labor imports. |
What this means for households and businesses
The cases involve different statutes and procedural stages, so the Supreme Court’s IEEPA decision does not by itself resolve the Section 122 appeal or the newer Section 301 challenges. For a household, this update does not establish whether or when prices will change. For an importer, the Section 122 plaintiffs’ request for refunds is not an award or a rule establishing eligibility.
Quick Recap
- Do not rely on the October 5 “hearing today” claim: no tariff appeal is listed on the Federal Circuit calendar for that date.
- Do not treat the expired Section 122 tariffs as currently active.
- Do not assume that the IEEPA ruling decides disputes involving different tariff statutes.
- Do not count on a refund unless a later court order or official process establishes who can receive one and how to claim it.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
