A federal court has ruled against the new global tariffs the Trump administration imposed after it lost a related case at the Supreme Court, according to an Associated Press report.

The decision marks the second time in quick succession that federal judges have moved against the administration's most sweeping use of tariff power. The case centers on a fresh round of global import duties that the White House put in place after the Supreme Court ruled against an earlier set of tariffs — a defeat the administration sought to work around by reissuing the measures under a different legal foundation.

The federal court rejected that approach. Its ruling hands a victory to the businesses and challengers who argued that the administration could not simply relaunch the same global tariff regime through new legal machinery once courts had found the original authority deficient.

The Supreme Court's earlier decision, which preceded the new tariffs, had already narrowed the administration's ability to impose the broad duties. Rather than accept that outcome as final, the administration imposed a new set of global tariffs — the measures now struck down by the federal court in this latest ruling.

For trade lawyers and their clients, the decision carries immediate practical consequences. Importers who paid duties under the new tariff regime will want to assess whether the ruling opens a path to refunds, and companies with goods in transit should review how the decision affects current entries at the border. Counsel advising cross-border supply chains should also anticipate further government action: the administration has shown a willingness to reengineer its tariff authorities after adverse rulings, so practitioners should track whether the government appeals, seeks a stay, or pivots once again to alternative statutory grounds. The ruling also strengthens the hand of parties considering their own challenges to other duties imposed in the same period.

The decision underscores a point federal courts have now made repeatedly in the litigation over the administration's trade agenda: the scope of presidential tariff power has enforceable limits, and a loss at the Supreme Court cannot be cured simply by reissuing the same measures under a new label.

Further procedural steps — including any appeal by the government and the precise scope of remedies for importers — will determine the decision's final reach. The Associated Press report on which this article is based did not specify the issuing court, the case caption, or the date of the opinion; practitioners should consult the underlying ruling before advising clients on refund or compliance strategy.