The Trump administration will obtain an emergency appellate stay of the Court of International Trade ruling invalidating the 10% global baseline tariffs within 14 days of that ruling (by May 21, 2026), keeping the tariffs operationally in force pending full appellate review.

Base rate drawn from analogous emergency stay outcomes in Section 232 and IEEPA-adjacent trade litigation (approximately 0.75). All four frameworks provide independent, non-redundant reasons to adjust upward: the Marxist inter-fraction analysis shows appellate courts structurally positioned to preserve optionality across competing capital fractions; the Austrian malinvestment-lock-in mechanism generates a political constituency for continuation that manifests as equity argument in emergency proceedings; the Keynesian uncertainty-shock analysis provides the most immediately compelling judicial legitimating rationale (indeterminate tariff status suppresses animal spirits more than either definitive outcome); and the Institutionalist deference-norm analysis identifies the Federal Circuit’s historical decision-rule as the lowest-transaction-cost path, making departure institutionally costly regardless of merits. Four independent upward-adjustment reasons from different theoretical premises push the final estimate to approximately 0.78 — meaningfully above the base rate but below 0.85, reflecting genuine uncertainty around bench composition, statutory clarity of the CIT ruling, and whether 14 days is procedurally sufficient.