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. 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 the Section 122 outcome.
The one scenario in which importers could see tangible financial benefit is if a definitive adverse ruling eventually comes through. Goldman noted that such an outcome could trigger a second round of refunds to importers, similar to those generated by earlier tariff challenges, though the bank placed that possibility in a later this year or 2026 timeframe rather than treating it as an imminent prospect. For now, Goldman’s message to markets is clear: the court may have ruled against the tariffs, but the tariffs are, in all likelihood, going nowhere fast.
—
Goldman’s assessment that the near-term effect of the ruling is likely to be limited will temper any market enthusiasm about a meaningful easing of the tariff burden on imported goods.
The firm’s expectation that a higher court will stay the ruling pending review mirrors the pattern seen when IEEPA tariffs were challenged last year, suggesting the administration has a well-worn procedural playbook available to it. For energy and commodity importers, the practical implication is that cost structures built around the 10% duties are unlikely to change before July 24, when the tariffs are in any case due to expire. The prospect of replacement tariffs under Section 301 or Section 232 means that even a definitive Supreme Court ruling against the administration may simply clear the way for a new tariff architecture rather than delivering lasting relief
