Can Trump impose tariffs without Congress? U.S. appeals court skeptical
Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so.
'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government attorney's arguments.
Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful.
The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.
Story continues below advertisement
Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection.
4:17
New poll sheds light on how Canadians feel about tariff negotiations with the United States
In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).'
Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.'
But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.'
Story continues below advertisement
No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers.
The issue now rests with the appeals judges.
2:37
Trump frustrated with India trade talks, thinks 25% tariffs will help: Haslett
The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday.
The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term, and continued by President Joe Biden.
Story continues below advertisement
The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear.
The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but lawmakers have gradually ceded power over trade policy to the White House.
Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
a minute ago
- Global News
Amazon fails in bid to overturn unionization of B.C. facility
British Columbia's Labour Relations Board has rejected a bid by e-commerce giant Amazon to overturn an earlier decision that awarded union certification to workers at a facility in Delta, B.C. In a new decision dated Tuesday, a Labour Relations Board panel ruled that it agrees with the board's original decision in July that ordered remedial certification due to Amazon ramping up hiring 'in order to thwart the union's certification application.' The panel says evidence presented by union Unifor showed 'a deliberate decision by the employer' to increase its employee roster to dilute union support during its membership drive. The decision also says the move for Amazon to intentionally pad its employee list and then using it to argue that union does not meet the threshold for certification 'is manipulating the employee list in order to avoid certification.' 4:58 Amazon Canada workers look to unionize Amazon had applied for the Labour Relations Board to reconsider its original July decision, and the latest decision says the company argued that the last board panel had erred in applying labour laws to the case — as well as in it awarding remedial certification to the union. Story continues below advertisement The company had argued that evidence showed 'there was an operational need for additional staff' while what was described as a 'pervasive anti-union campaign' was protected by employer free-speech rights. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The panel, however, disagreed. 'In our view, the original decision adopts the correct approach, which is to consider the employer's conduct as a whole,' the decision says. Citing precedent, the panel writes, 'We note that the kinds of activities in which the employer engaged in the present case are the 'classical hallmarks of an interference in the formation or selection of a trade union.'' The panel says that Amazon's move to 'knowingly and improperly' pad the employee list is 'sufficiently egregious' to justify its original decision to order union certification. 'From our perspective, the intentional padding of an employee list for the purpose of undermining an organizing drive is an even more fundamental attack on its employees' associational rights,' the latest decision says. Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Unifor National president Lana Payne says the decision is a 'message' to B.C. employers to not interfere in unionization 'or to suffer the consequences.'
Toronto Star
a minute ago
- Toronto Star
A new immigrant detention partnership nicknamed after Indiana's iconic racetrack inspires backlash
Top Trump administration officials boast that a new state partnership to expand immigrant detention in Indiana will be the next so-called ' Alligator Alcatraz.' However, the agreement is already prompting backlash in the Midwest state, starting with its splashy 'Speedway Slammer' moniker.
Winnipeg Free Press
a minute ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know as Trump's immigration crackdown strips tuition breaks from thousands of students
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Tens of thousands of U.S. college students without legal resident status are losing access to in-state tuition prices as part of President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration. The Justice Department has been suing states to end tuition breaks for students without legal residency, starting with Texas in June. It has also filed lawsuits in Kentucky, Minnesota and, most recently, Oklahoma. Last year, Florida ended its tuition break for students living there illegally, 'Federal law prohibits aliens not lawfully present in the United States from getting in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,' the Justice Department argued in a lawsuit this month in Oklahoma. 'There are no exceptions.' The tuition breaks once enjoyed wide bipartisan support but have increasingly come under criticism from Republicans in recent years. Here's what to know about the tuition breaks: Texas' program was blocked first Texas' tuition policy was initially passed with sweeping bipartisan majorities in the Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, as a way to open access to higher education for students without legal residency already living in the state. Supporters then and now say it boosted the state's economy by creating a better-educated and better-prepared workforce. The law allowed students without legal resident status to qualify for in-state tuition if they had lived in Texas for three years before graduating from high school and for a year before enrolling in college. They also had to sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal resident status as soon as possible. Texas now has about 57,000 qualifying students enrolled in its public universities and colleges, according to the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a nonpartisan nonprofit group of university leaders focused on immigration policy. The state has about 690,000 students overall at its public universities. The difference in tuition rates is substantial. For example, at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, a 34,000-student campus along the border with Mexico, a state resident will pay about $10,000 in basic tuition for a minimum full-time class schedule in the upcoming school year. A nonresident student will pay $19,000. Political pushback and a swift end Texas' law stood mostly unchallenged for years, but it came under fire as debates over illegal immigration intensified. In the 2012 Republican presidential primary, Perry apologized after saying critics of the law 'did not have a heart.' The law withstood several repeal efforts in the Republican-dominated Legislature. During the legislative session that ended June 2, a repeal bill did not even get a vote. But the ax fell quickly. After the Trump administration filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, a key Trump ally, chose not to defend the law in court and instead filed a motion agreeing that it should not be enforced. In Oklahoma, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, filed a similar motion. 'Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong — it is discriminatory and unlawful,' Drummond said in a statement. Campuses nationwide feel the impact At least 21 states and the University of Michigan system have laws or policies allowing tuition breaks for the immigrant students, according to the National Immigration Law Center, which favors them. Those states include Democratic-leaning ones such as California and New York, but also GOP-leaning ones such as Kansas and Nebraska. According to the center, at least 16 states allow the immigrant students to receive scholarships or other aid to go to college. Immigration lawyers and education advocates said they are assessing whether there are legal avenues to challenge the rulings.
