Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court is expected to make a ruling on a preliminary injunction that could potentially nullify the 10% tariffs imposed by Trump on April 2, which has been largely overlooked by the market as a potential positive risk [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Challenge and Implications - The legal challenge centers around Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), with plaintiffs arguing that the President does not have the power to bypass Congress for such measures [2][3]. - The plaintiffs, represented by the conservative Liberty Justice Center, assert that the IEEPA does not grant the President the authority to impose broad tariffs without specific events or international developments [3][4]. - The case has garnered support from notable Republican figures, emphasizing the constitutional issue of whether executive power can override congressional fiscal authority [3][5]. Group 2: Court's Role and Potential Outcomes - The relatively obscure U.S. Trade Court in Manhattan has jurisdiction over national tariff and trade disputes, and its decisions could set significant precedents for future presidential use of the IEEPA [6][7]. - The court's ruling, regardless of the outcome, will have implications for the constitutional distribution of powers and could either embolden or restrict future trade policies under the current administration [7]. - If the court grants the injunction, it would halt the implemented 10% tariffs and any pending reciprocal tariffs, potentially reshaping ongoing negotiations with the EU, Japan, and India [1][7]. Group 3: Business Reactions - Many large U.S. companies are currently taking a wait-and-see approach regarding the lawsuit, partly due to fears of political retaliation, while smaller businesses are more affected by cost pressures and are leading the challenge [8]. - The potential for more challenges to arise in the next two years is noted, indicating a growing discontent among businesses regarding the tariff policies [8].