A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade will consider lawsuits filed by 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses seeking to block the tariffs, which took effect on February 24.

The plaintiffs contend the policy sidesteps a decision by the US Supreme Court that struck down a broad set of earlier tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Trump administration has defended the tariffs as a lawful response to persistent trade imbalances, arguing that the United States’ long-standing deficit importing more goods than it exports justifies emergency measures.

The tariffs were enacted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits duties of up to 15% for a limited period in cases of significant balance-of-payments deficits or to prevent a sharp depreciation of the U.S. dollar.

Plaintiffs argue that the provision is intended for short-term monetary crises and does not apply to routine trade deficits, which they say do not meet the statutory threshold.The legal dispute marks a further test of executive authority over trade policy, an area traditionally involving congressional oversight.

Trump has made tariffs a central element of his economic and foreign policy agenda in his second term, asserting broad unilateral powers to impose import duties.

The case follows a February 20 ruling by the Supreme Court that invalidated many of Trump’s earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that the statute did not grant the authority he had claimed.

The current lawsuits do not challenge other tariffs imposed under more conventional legal frameworks, including duties on steel, aluminum and copper imports.

The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

The filings, tied to long-running litigation over migrant child detention standards, detail conditions at the Dilley detention facility, where children and families faced virus outbreaks and extended lockdowns in December and January.

Lawyers and monitors said conditions remained concerning even as the number of detained children declined in recent weeks.Under standards stemming from the Flores settlement, children are generally not to be held in custody for more than 20 days.

However, government data cited in the filings showed that about 595 children were detained beyond that limit during December and January.Of those, approximately 265 were held for more than 50 days and 55 for over 100 days, according to the documents.

This marked an increase from a prior disclosure indicating around 400 children exceeded the limit between August and September.Lawyers argued that prolonged detention, combined with reported deficiencies in care, risked worsening physical and psychological harm among minors.

Attorneys and advocacy groups cited cases of inadequate medical treatment, poor food quality and limited access to legal counsel. One filing described a 13-year-old girl who attempted self-harm after being denied prescribed antidepressants and access to her mother.

Government records referenced in the filings stated there had been no placements on suicide watch.Advocates who visited the facility in March said that while the number of detained children had dropped to about 85, systemic issues persisted. Reports also cited the presence of worms in food and insufficient healthcare access.

The case of a young child detained earlier this year drew protests, including demonstrations by detainees within the facility.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that detention standards provide for basic necessities, including adequate food and water, and described detention as a consequence of migration choices.

It added that authorities were working to expedite deportations.The administration of Donald Trump is seeking to end the Flores settlement, arguing it constrains enforcement and imposes costs.

The case is being overseen by Dolly Gee of the Central District of California, with a hearing scheduled later this month to review compliance and conditions.