Based on Wikipedia: United States Court of International Trade

In late May 2025, a federal court in lower Manhattan made headlines by striking down President Trump's sweeping tariff increases. The ruling declared that the president had overstepped his authority, exceeding the bounds of emergency powers to impose import taxes on goods from around the world. But this wasn't the Supreme Court. It wasn't even one of the federal appeals courts that typically handle high-profile constitutional cases. It was a court that most Americans have never heard of: the United States Court of International Trade.

This obscure tribunal sits at the center of every major trade dispute involving the federal government. And in an era of escalating trade wars, tariff battles, and economic nationalism, understanding what this court does—and where it came from—matters more than it has in decades.

A Court Built on Tariffs

The Court of International Trade traces its origins to 1890, when Congress created something called the Board of General Appraisers. The name sounds like something out of a Victorian counting house, which is appropriate—the board existed to resolve disputes about how much importers owed in customs duties.

At the time, tariffs weren't just a policy tool. They were the primary source of federal revenue. The income tax wouldn't become permanent until 1913, so the government ran largely on what it collected at ports and border crossings. When merchants disagreed with customs officials about the value of their goods—or which tariff category applied to their shipments—those disputes needed resolution somewhere.

The Board of General Appraisers filled that role as a quasi-judicial body within the Treasury Department. Nine presidential appointees reviewed decisions made by customs officials, functioning somewhere between an administrative appeals process and an actual court. This hybrid status would prove temporary.

By 1926, customs cases had grown too numerous and complex for the old board structure. Congress replaced it with the United States Customs Court, an independent tribunal with expanded judicial powers. Two years later, this court made history by becoming the first federal tribunal in the country to seat a woman judge.

Genevieve Cline's Path to the Bench

President Calvin Coolidge nominated Genevieve Cline to the Customs Court in 1928, setting off a confirmation battle that revealed both the prejudices of the era and the growing influence of women's organizations in American politics.

Senators objected to Cline on two grounds. First, she was a woman—still a novelty in any courtroom, let alone on the federal bench. Second, critics claimed she was self-taught and lacked proper judicial experience. In an era when formal legal education was becoming the standard for judges, being an autodidact was seen as disqualifying.

But Cline had powerful allies. Katherine Pike, president of the National Association of Women Lawyers, organized support for her nomination. Club-women—members of the influential women's civic organizations that wielded considerable political power in the early twentieth century—lobbied senators on her behalf.

The campaign worked. The Senate confirmed Cline on May 25, 1928. She received her commission the next day and took her oath of office in Cleveland on June 5th. Eight years before President Roosevelt would appoint the first woman to a general federal judgeship, the Customs Court had already broken that barrier.

The Slow Rise to Full Judicial Status

Understanding the court's evolution requires a brief detour into the arcane world of Article I versus Article III courts—categories that sound technical but carry real consequences for how justice gets administered.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary, granting judges lifetime tenure and protection against salary reduction. These safeguards exist to ensure judicial independence: judges who serve for life and can't have their pay cut are free to rule against the government or powerful interests without fear of retaliation.

Article I courts, by contrast, are created by Congress under its general legislative powers. Their judges typically serve fixed terms and lack the constitutional protections of their Article III counterparts. These courts handle specialized matters—bankruptcy, tax disputes, military justice—but have historically been considered less prestigious and less independent than the constitutional courts.

When Congress created the Customs Court in 1926, it was an Article I tribunal. The judges served at Congress's pleasure, theoretically removable if their decisions proved unpopular. This arrangement persisted for three decades.

Then, in 1956, Congress elevated the Customs Court to Article III status. The jurisdiction didn't change. The procedures stayed the same. But the judges now had lifetime appointments and constitutional protections against political interference. Trade disputes had become important enough—and complex enough—to warrant a fully independent federal court.

Birth of the Modern Court

The Customs Courts Act of 1980 completed the transformation. Congress renamed the tribunal the United States Court of International Trade, expanded its jurisdiction to cover virtually all trade-related disputes, and confirmed its status as a full-fledged Article III court with all the powers and prestige that entails.

Today's court can do everything other federal courts can do—issue injunctions, award money damages, compel government officials to act through writs of mandamus. It operates with the same procedural rules, more or less, as other federal trial courts. A single judge typically hears cases, though disputes involving constitutional questions or significant implications for trade law can go before a three-judge panel.

Nine judges serve on the court, all nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Here's an unusual constraint: no more than five can belong to the same political party. This requirement exists nowhere else in the federal judiciary. It reflects Congress's recognition that trade policy is intensely political, and that even a specialized court needs some protection against becoming a rubber stamp for whichever party controls the White House.

What the Court Actually Decides

The Court of International Trade handles a surprisingly wide range of disputes. The obvious category involves customs duties—arguments about how much importers owe on goods entering the country. But the court's jurisdiction extends far beyond tariff calculations.

Anti-dumping cases land here. Dumping occurs when foreign companies sell products in the United States for less than they charge in their home markets, often with government subsidies that let them undercut American competitors. The Commerce Department investigates these allegations and can impose extra duties to level the playing field. Importers who think those duties are unfair—or foreign companies accused of dumping—can challenge the determinations in the Court of International Trade.

Countervailing duty cases follow a similar path. These involve direct government subsidies to foreign producers, rather than price manipulation. When American industries claim they're being harmed by subsidized competition, federal agencies investigate and can impose offsetting duties. Those determinations, too, can be appealed to this court.

The court also handles disputes about trade adjustment assistance—federal programs that help workers and businesses hurt by foreign competition. If the Labor Department or Agriculture Department denies someone's claim for assistance, the Court of International Trade can review that decision.

Even customs broker licensing falls within the court's jurisdiction. The people and companies that handle import paperwork on behalf of businesses need federal licenses, and disputes about those licenses end up in this court.

The NAFTA Exception

One notable carve-out exists in the court's otherwise comprehensive jurisdiction over trade disputes. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement—now superseded by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, though the basic framework persists—certain anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases involving Canadian or Mexican goods can be heard by special binational panels instead of the Court of International Trade.

These panels operate under their own rules, with representatives from both countries participating in the decision. The arrangement reflects the unique economic relationship between the three North American neighbors and the political sensitivities around trade disputes between them. A Mexican company facing American anti-dumping duties might prefer to have its case heard by a panel that includes Mexican representatives, rather than solely by American judges.

The Court's Physical Home

The Court of International Trade sits in lower Manhattan, which makes geographic sense—New York has been the country's commercial gateway since the colonial era. More specifically, the court occupies the James L. Watson Court of International Trade Building on Foley Square, in the same federal complex that houses other major courts and government offices.

The building was named in 2003 for James L. Watson, who served on the Customs Court from 1964 to 1980 and then on the renamed Court of International Trade until 2001. Watson's thirty-seven-year tenure bridged the court's transformation from a specialized customs tribunal to a comprehensive international trade court.

Despite its New York location, the court can hear cases originating anywhere. Judges travel to other cities when necessary, and the court's jurisdiction extends to disputes arising from international transactions that may have no direct connection to New York at all.

The Chief Judge System

Like other federal courts, the Court of International Trade has a chief judge who handles administrative responsibilities and presides over panels. Unlike the Supreme Court, where the president specifically nominates someone to be Chief Justice, the chief judgeship on this court rotates among eligible judges based on seniority.

The eligibility requirements create an interesting system. A judge must have served on the court for at least a year, be under sixty-five, and not have previously served as chief. When the position becomes vacant, it goes to the most senior judge who meets these criteria. The chief serves for seven years or until reaching seventy, whichever comes first.

This rotation system means the chief judgeship isn't a reward for political loyalty or ideological alignment. It's simply a function of seniority and age. A president can't nominate someone directly to the chief position; they can only appoint judges to the court and wait for the rotation to elevate them.

The system dates to 1982, though variations existed earlier. Under the original Board of General Appraisers, the equivalent position was called "President" rather than chief judge. The modern rules emerged gradually through various legislative changes, settling into their current form just over four decades ago.

May 2025: The Tariff Ruling

Which brings us back to the ruling that put this court in the headlines. In May 2025, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs—sweeping import taxes that the administration had justified under emergency economic powers.

The case, styled V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, turned on a law from 1977: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. This statute gives presidents broad authority to respond to economic emergencies, including the power to block financial transactions, freeze assets, and impose various economic restrictions.

The Trump administration argued that IEEPA's emergency powers included the authority to impose tariffs. The three-judge panel disagreed. Emergency economic powers, they held, don't extend to broad import taxes of the kind the administration had enacted.

The court also struck down separate tariffs on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada. These had been justified not under emergency economic powers but as responses to drug trafficking and illegal immigration. The judges found that rationale equally unsupportable—the executive branch couldn't use border security concerns to impose sweeping trade restrictions.

The ruling demonstrated something important about the Court of International Trade: for all its obscurity, this court has the power to check presidential authority on some of the most consequential economic policies a president can pursue. Trade policy happens at the intersection of executive power, congressional authority, and international relations. When presidents push the boundaries of their trade authority, this court sits in judgment.

A Court for Our Economic Moment

For most of the twentieth century, the Court of International Trade operated in relative obscurity. Trade disputes mattered to importers, manufacturers, and trade lawyers, but they rarely captured public attention. The court existed to resolve technical questions about tariff classifications and duty calculations—important work, but not headline material.

That obscurity ended as trade policy became central to American politics. The rise of globalization, the debate over free trade agreements, concerns about manufacturing jobs lost to foreign competition—all of these trends elevated trade disputes from technical arcana to political flashpoints.

When presidents began using emergency powers and creative legal interpretations to reshape trade policy unilaterally, the Court of International Trade became the venue where those executive actions would face judicial review. A court designed in the 1890s to resolve tariff disputes has become, unexpectedly, a crucial check on presidential power in an era of economic nationalism.

The judges who hear these cases aren't household names. The court's internal procedures and jurisdictional boundaries remain the province of specialists. But the decisions emerging from the James L. Watson Building now shape the boundaries of what presidents can and cannot do on trade—and that makes this court, however obscure, one worth understanding.