The U.S. government can continue collecting the 10% worldwide tariff it imposed in February while legal challenges to the levies continue to work their way through the courts, a federal court ruled Thursday.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington decision handed a procedural win to the Trump administration, concluding that its case was “likely to succeed on the merits.”

At issue are temporary 10% worldwide tariffs President Donald Trump imposed after the Supreme Court in February struck down even broader double-digit tariffs the president had imposed last year on almost every country on Earth. The new tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, are set to expire July 24.

Section 122, which had never been used to justify import taxes before, allows the president to impose worldwide tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, after which congressional approval is needed to extend them.

Section 122 is aimed at what it calls “fundamental international payments problems.” In dispute is whether that wording covers trade deficits — the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them — as the Trump administration contends.

A split three-judge panel of the specialized Court of International Trade in New York last month found the 10% global tariffs were illegal after small businesses sued to stop them. The trade court ruled 2-1 that Trump overstepped the tariff power that Congress had delegated to the president under the law. The tariffs are “invalid” and “unauthorized by law,” the majority wrote.

The Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One, marking a dramatic escalation of President Donald Trump's campaign against the media that has drawn condemnation for eroding a fundamental freedom of American democracy.

The new jet, a present from the U.S. ally that the administration spent $400 million on to retrofit and upgrade, entered service last week. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey and later referenced threats against him made by Iran.

The subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the Times said, adding that federal agents delivered some subpoenas to the reporters at their homes. The subpoenas were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Times journalists who received subpoenas included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, the Times reported.

"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said in a statement.

Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Trump's "war on the press is looking for another victim."

He said in a statement that the subpoenas "break from longstanding Justice Department practice to protect the public interest and press independence by requiring prosecutors to only seek information from reporters as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted."

The department said that "to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are."

Its statement said "we value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation's secrets do what they're supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information."

While recognizing "there may always be natural tension there," the department said "we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it's okay to leak classified information impacting national security."

Issuing subpoenas represents further ramping up of Trump's effort to threaten independent news organizations by leveraging the power of the federal government against them. It is also part of a systematic pattern by the Republican president to attempt to undermine press freedom in order to shield him from negative coverage.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas seeking to compel testimony from reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the department later withdrew the subpoenas, though.

In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who has been covering Trump's transformation of the federal government, as part of a leak investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.

During his first term, Trump suggested that the press constituted an "enemy" of the American people. Since returning to the White House last year, he has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.

The 5-4 decision rejected a Republican-led attack on laws in more than half the states and the District of Columbia that permit mailed ballots to arrive and be counted some number of days after the election, provided they are postmarked by Election Day. The outcome spares officials the headache of changing their ballot rules just a few months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

In just over half those states, the more forgiving deadlines apply only to ballots cast by military and overseas voters.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court's majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices.

Federal laws setting a single Election Day "leave open when those votes must be received," Barrett wrote.

Congress could change the law, she said. "If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives," Barrett wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent for four justices. "Not only is today's decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences," Alito wrote. "The majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."

The legal challenge was part of Trump's broader attack on most mail balloting, which he has said breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and years of experience in numerous states. Trump has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 resulted from fraud even though more than 60 court decisions and his own attorney general said that argument had no merit.

Trump called the court ruling a "tremendous loss" and renewed his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which has made it through the House of Representatives but not the Senate.

The court heard arguments in March in a case from Mississippi pitting the state against Trump's Republican administration and the Republican and Libertarian parties. At issue was whether federal law sets a single Election Day that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials.

The federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by Election Day.

The outcome is a "sigh of relief" for a lot of election administrators, said Stephen Richer, a Republican and the former top election administrator in Arizona's Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.

A ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee "would have created a whole host of administrative challenges for the affected states," said Richer, who is now a legal fellow at the Cato Institute.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether states can use juries made up of only six people in criminal cases, instead of the usual 12. The case puts a Florida chiropractor convicted of practicing with a suspended license in an unlikely leading role in a constitutional clash.

The justices will hear arguments in the fall in the case of Hamed Kian, who argues that a six-person jury violates his constitutional rights.

Florida uses six-person juries for all criminal cases that don't involve the death penalty. Five other states, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts and Utah, also conduct some criminal trials with six-member juries.

The 45-year-old Kian's license was suspended after three women who were his patients complained he either kissed or touched them inappropriately, according to court records.

Prosecutors sought an indictment after amassing evidence that Kian, who had an office in Jupiter, continued to see patients even after the suspension. He was convicted by a six-person jury.

Kian's lawyers argue that the smaller jury violates the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state."

The amendment does not explicitly set the size of the jury, but Kian's lawyers contend that the word jury could only have meant a body of 12 people at the time the amendment was adopted in 1791. Just over 100 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that juries had to have 12 people.

But in 1970, the justices changed course and ruled by a 7-1 vote that the number 12 was not sacrosanct, also in a case from Florida. Justice Thurgood Marshall was the only dissenter.

More recently, the court has placed renewed emphasis on the original understanding of the Constitution. In another Sixth Amendment case, the court ruled in 2020 that juries must be unanimous in criminal cases, effectively overturning a 1972 decision that had allowed for non-unanimous convictions in criminal cases in Louisiana and Oregon.

"The same reasoning applies to the historical right to a jury of twelve," Kian's lawyers wrote in their appeal to the court to step in. "When the People enshrined the jury trial right in the Constitution, they did not attach a rider that future judges could adapt it based on latter-day social science views."

In trying to persuade the Supreme Court to leave Kian's conviction in place, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier wrote that the 1970 case was correctly decided and "overruling it also would imperil thousands of criminal convictions in Florida and five other states that for more than 50 years have relied on its rule."