Federal Court Blocks Trump's Tariffs, Finding the President Overstepped His Authority
A federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs from going into effect, ruling that the emergency-powers law invoked by the administration doesn't give the president authority to impose duties on goods from nearly every US trading partner.
The three-judge panel at the New York-based US Court of International Trade concluded that Congress has exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 -- the crux of Trump's argument to impose the tariffs -- doesn't give the president "unbounded" authority to impose the duties.
"An unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government," the court wrote in its opinion. "Regardless of whether the court views the President's actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional."
White House spokesperson Kush Desai said that trade deficits amount to a national emergency "that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base -- facts that the court did not dispute." He added that "the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness."
Trump has repeatedly said the tariffs would bring back manufacturing jobs to the US and help reduce the federal budget deficit. But since Trump announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, global financial markets were left upended and many business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause.
Since then, the president has repeatedly delayed the enforcement of certain rates, most recently kicking a 50% duty against the European Union to July at the earliest, leaving a lot of uncertainty in the present moment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
California beach ‘Resist!' protest pushes ‘kindness' while calling to ‘86 47' in anti-Trump message
Nearly 1,000 people gathered at Main Beach in Santa Cruz, California, on Saturday for a Pride Month protest aimed squarely at President Donald Trump. Participants formed a massive human banner that spelled out "Resist!" in rainbow colors as part of a demonstration organized by Indivisible Santa Cruz County. The 220-foot-wide display, with letters reaching 70 feet high, was designed by longtime left-wing activist Brad Newsham. Organizers described the event as a peaceful act of resistance and a show of solidarity with the LGBTQ+ MAYOR ACCUSED OF LYING AFTER BLAMING CHRISTIAN RALLY FOR PARK VIOLENCE "It's very important, the more people [who] can show our neighbors, our politicians in the world, that nonviolent resistance is the way to express our dissatisfaction with the way our country's going," said event organizer Becca Moeller to Lookout Santa Cruz. But just above the colorful banner was a very different kind of message: "86 47," a phrase many interpreted as a call to "get rid of" the 47th President of the United States. In slang, "86" typically means to cancel, eliminate, or even destroy. Combined with "47," the number now associated with President Trump's second term, the phrase has raised alarms among critics who say it crossed a this month, former FBI Chief James Comey posted a similar message in the sand, but instead of kelp, they were shells. He has since removed the post after widespread criticism and action by law enforcement. "We don't need a king. We want to go back to the way we were. We want to make America kind again," said protester Beth Basilius to Lookout Santa Cruz. While the event promoted "kindness" and inclusivity, the imagery told a more conflicted story. "They claim they want to make America 'kind' again, but then they spell out '86 47' in the sand. That's not kindness — that's a coded call to eliminate someone they disagree with. It's hypocritical," said Mike LeLieur, chair of the Santa Cruz County Republican Party to Fox News Digital. LeLieur said local conservatives face growing hostility from the political left. "We've had vehicles vandalized, tires slashed, and windows broken. I was forced off the road and attacked just for having a Trump sticker. At our State of the Union watch party, we were swarmed by angry protesters. It's been nonstop hostility — and these are the same people who call themselves the 'Party of Peace.'" Just 8.5% of voters in the city of Santa Cruz are registered Republicans, according to the most recent data from the California Secretary of State. Despite the message written in the sand, some participants insisted the demonstration was rooted in compassion. "We want to go back to the way we were. We want to make America kind again," said protester Beth Basilius to Lookout Santa Cruz. Supporters of the protest claimed that "86 47" was a symbolic rejection of Trump's agenda, not a literal threat. But critics say that argument falls flat in a political climate where coded language carries real-world consequences. "In California — and especially in Santa Cruz County — the left is creating a political environment of non-acceptance and persecution," said Daniel Enriquez, a representative of the California Republican Assembly. "It's consistent with the goals of socialist movements throughout history." Jenny Evans, co-leader of Indivisible Santa Cruz County, defended the event. "When a great number of people come out to do something like this, it just is one more thing to show that we're not all saying, 'Fine, fine. We'll go along with whatever you want,'" she said to Lookout Santa Cruz. The event was also part of Santa Cruz's 50th Pride celebration. Participants were instructed to dress in matching rainbow colors, coordinated with fabric laid out across the beach starting at 7 a.m. The protest was peaceful, but critics say calling for kindness while displaying "86 47" sent a message that was anything but. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPIndivisible Santa Cruz County did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein does not plan to testify at sex crimes retrial
Harvey Weinstein does not plan to testify at his New York sex crimes retrial, his lawyer said on Sunday. That means jurors soon will get the case against the former movie studio boss who propelled the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct. The trial will move on to closing arguments on Tuesday without testimony from Weinstein, Arthur Aidala said on Sunday night. The court handles other cases on Mondays. It is unclear whether jury deliberations would begin on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday. It was a fraught decision for Weinstein, who has never answered questions in open court about any of the accusations women have made. He did not testify at previous trials in New York and California and was convicted in both. He denies the allegations, and lawyer Mr Aidala has said that Weinstein was giving a lot of thought to whether to take the stand this time. While his California appeal winds on, Weinstein won a new trial in his New York rape and sexual assault case when the state's highest court overturned his 2020 conviction. He is charged in New York with raping Jessica Mann in 2013 and forcing oral sex on Miriam Haley and Kaja Sokola, separately, in 2006. Ms Mann was an actor and hairstylist, Ms Haley a production assistant and producer, and Ms Sokola a model who aspired to an acting career. All three women have testified for days at the retrial, giving emotional and graphic accounts of what they say they endured from a powerbroker who suggested he would help them achieve their show-business dreams, but then manoeuvred them into private settings and preyed on them. His lawyers have argued that anything that happened between him and his accusers was consensual. In the US, defendants in criminal cases are not obligated to testify, and many decide not to, for various reasons. Among them: the prospect of being questioned by prosecutors. Weinstein has been watching the New York retrial intently from the defence table, sometimes shaking his head at accusers' testimony and often leaning over to one or another of his lawyers to convey his thoughts. One of the lawyers, Mr Aidala, said outside court on Thursday that Weinstein thought a lot of holes had been poked in the accusers' accounts, but that he also was pondering whether jurors would feel they needed to hear from him. The jury has heard from a few other defence witnesses — one of them via a transcript read by court employees. That witness, Talita Maia, testified at the 2020 trial but was unavailable this time, so jurors instead got a reading Friday of her earlier testimony. One court stenographer voiced the 2020 lawyers' questions, while another stenographer sat in the witness box and rendered Ms Maia's answers, at times with emphasis. Ms Maia and Ms Mann were roommates and friends in 2013, but later fell out. According to Ms Maia, Ms Mann never mentioned in those days that Weinstein had hurt her in any way. Both Ms Maia and another witness, Thomas Richards, met up with Ms Mann and Weinstein shortly after Ms Mann has said she was raped. Both witnesses testified that they saw nothing amiss. Mr Richards, who was subpoenaed to appear and said he did not want to be seen as a Weinstein supporter, recalled Ms Mann and Weinstein having a 'friendly conversation' at a meal he shared with them that day. Ms Mann testified earlier this month that she never told police or anyone else that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her because she didn't think she'd be believed, and she was scared of how he might react. Weinstein's defence also brought in Ms Sokola's pal Helga Samuelsen, who also has friendly ties to the former producer. Ms Samuelsen testified on Thursday that Weinstein visited Ms Sokola once and spent about a half- hour in a bedroom with her in a New York apartment the women briefly shared in 2005; Ms Sokola told jurors no such thing happened. The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, but Ms Sokola, Ms Mann and Ms Haley have given their permission to be identified.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China 'firmly rejects' US claims of violating sweeping tariffs deal
China on Monday 'firmly rejected' US claims it breached a tariffs deal, as tensions between the world's top economies flared. The dispute comes weeks after Beijing and Washington agreed to a 90-day reduction in tariffs following high-level talks in Geneva aimed at easing trade frictions. China said Monday it "firmly rejects" US claims that it had violated a sweeping tariffs deal, as tensions between the two economic superpowers showed signs of ratcheting back up. Beijing and Washington last month agreed to slash staggeringly high tariffs on each other for 90 days after talks between top officials in Geneva. But top Washington officials last week accused China of violating the deal, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying Beijing was "slow-rolling" the agreement in comments to "Fox News Sunday". China hit back Monday, saying Washington "has made bogus charges and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts". "China firmly rejects these unreasonable accusations," its commerce ministry said in a statement. US President Donald Trump said last week that China had "totally violated" the deal, without providing details. Beijing's commerce ministry said it "has been firm in safeguarding its rights and interests, and sincere in implementing the consensus". (FRANCE 24 with AFP) Read more on FRANCE 24 EnglishRead also:What's next in the US-China trade war?US, China trade truce comes into effect bringing short-term relief for markets
