logo
A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling

A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling

BreakingNews.ie2 days ago

A federal court in New York handed US President Donald Trump a big setback on Wednesday, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Mr Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs.
Advertisement
The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world.
The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade.
Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Mr Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up.
-Which tariffs did the court block?
The court's decision blocks the tariffs Mr Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.
Advertisement
A person walks in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm in Tokyo (Eugene Hoshiko/AP)
On April 2, Mr Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else.
He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place.
Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'.
In February, he had invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.
Advertisement
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Mr Trump has made the most of it.
The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling on Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states.
The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion.
The legal challenges to Mr Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up in the Supreme Court (Evan Vucci/AP)
-Why did the court rule against the president?
The administration had argued that courts had approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold.
Advertisement
The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA.
The court disagreed, deciding that Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA.
It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad.
-So where does this leave Mr Trump's trade agenda?
Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'.
Advertisement
She said: 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity.
'Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.'
The trade court noted that Mr Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974.
But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.
For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process', said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University.
'The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Musk to speak from Oval Office as tech giant ends time at White House
Trump and Musk to speak from Oval Office as tech giant ends time at White House

BBC News

time10 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Trump and Musk to speak from Oval Office as tech giant ends time at White House

Update: Date: 18:40 BST Title: What is the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge)? Content: Despite its full name, Doge is not an official government department, which can only be established by an act of Congress. Instead, it's an advisory body which was created by an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump. Part of Doge's mission, according to the order, relates to IT upgrades aimed at boosting efficiency. It must finish its work by July 2026. Many Doge staff appear to be young people with tech backgrounds and limited or no government experience. Musk said Doge's mission was to end the "tyranny of the bureaucracy", save taxpayers' money and reduce US national debt, which stands at $36tn (£28.9tn). The organisation's activities have included shuttering government agencies, defunding programmes and mass layoffs. Update: Date: 18:32 BST Title: Musk is 'terrific', Trump says Content: Reacting to Elon Musk's departure, US President Donald Trump called the billionaire "terrific" in a social media post on Thursday. This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way. Elon is terrific! See you tomorrow at the White House." President Donald Trump Update: Date: 18:24 BST Title: It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House? Content: Bernd Debusmann JrReporting from the White House Elon Musk's time in the Trump administration is coming to an end after a tempestuous 129 days in which the world's richest person took an axe to government spending - stirring ample controversy along the way. While Musk's time in government lasted little more than four months, his work with Doge upended the federal government and had an impact not just in the halls of power in Washington - but around the world. In addition to taking a chainsaw to federal spending - and cutting some 260,000 jobs from the federal workforce - some observers have credited Musk with helping nudge the White House even further towards an "America First" world view and bringing misinformation into the Oval Office. His presence at the White House also revealed deep fissures in Trump's cabinet, and blurred the already complicated line between politics and business in the "Trump 2.0" administration. Update: Date: 18:12 BST Title: Remember, Doge savings stand at less than a tenth of the original goal Content: Gary O'DonoghueChief North America correspondent It looked as though Elon Musk's departure from government would be with more of a whimper than a bang. But the insertion late last night of this valedictory news conference looks like a testament to some residual presidential affection. Key will be the figures that will no doubt get bandied around by Musk and Trump about how much money exactly has been saved. Remember the initial goal during the campaign was two trillion dollars - almost a third of discretional federal spending. That soon became one trillion at the start of the administration - and according to Doge itself, the actual current savings stand at $175bn - less than a tenth of the original goal. Musk may also face some uncomfortable questions about his personal life and his use of prescription drugs such as Ketamine. And how will both men handle their clear disagreements over the "big, beautiful" bill - which the president vaunts and which Musk believes will add trillions to spending. Update: Date: 18:03 BST Title: White House waits for Musk's farewell Content: Bernd Debusmann JrReporting from the White House Good afternoon from the sunny White House - which has become a hub of activity ahead of Elon Musk's meeting with Donald Trump at the Oval Office. Musk's presence here is one that has long been a focus for the White House press corps. That's reflected in the amount of people trickling in at the moment, on a day in which this is really the only public event expected here. The meeting is expected to be cordial, with both men praising the work of Doge and Musk's role over the last few months. Trump has repeatedly defended Musk's role at the White House, and several months ago I had the opportunity to ask Trump about him myself on a day in which I was a member of the pool. In response to my question about Musk's future, Trump called him "brilliant" and said that he would "like to keep him for a long time". That, however, came long before Musk said that he was "disappointed" in Trump's "big, beautiful" bill - the first public sign of disagreement between the two men. Today might also see Musk questioned about reports that he was heavily using drugs during the Trump campaign, external. Earlier, the White House Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, was asked about that as well. "The drugs that we're concerned about are the drugs running across the southern border," Miller responded. Update: Date: 18:02 BST Title: Musk announced his departure from Doge on Wednesday Content: Elon Musk announced his 'scheduled time as a special government employee' was coming to an end on his social media platform X on Wednesday. He thanked President Donald Trump for the 'opportunity to reduce wasteful spending' and announced that the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) would continue in his absence. "The Doge mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government," the South African-born billionaire wrote. Update: Date: 18:01 BST Title: It's time for Musk to leave the White House. Not before one last swan song Content: Rachel FlynnReporting from Washington DC Tech tycoon and, until the end of the day, special government employee Elon Musk is set to speak in the Oval Office shortly, on what he says is his last day in the role. Musk's designated role allowed him to work a federal job for 130 days each year, which he began 130 days ago on Trump's inauguration. He promised to slash government spending and "waste" - we'll be analysing whether he did so successfully. His departure from the White House comes a day after he said he was "disappointed" with Trump's budget bill, which proposes multi-trillion dollar tax breaks and a boost to defence spending. Those 130 days have been full of twists, turns, and headlines - which we'll be delving into throughout our coverage. Stay with us as we look ahead to a news conference with Trump and Musk at 13:30 local time (18:30 BST) and analysis from our correspondents along the way.

DHS publishes a list of 500 sanctuary cities for ‘obstructing the enforcement' of Trump's deportation plans
DHS publishes a list of 500 sanctuary cities for ‘obstructing the enforcement' of Trump's deportation plans

The Independent

time14 minutes ago

  • The Independent

DHS publishes a list of 500 sanctuary cities for ‘obstructing the enforcement' of Trump's deportation plans

The Department of Homeland Security has published a list of 500 sanctuary cities it claims are ' deliberately and shamefully obstructing' the Trump administration's deportation plans. A list of sanctuary jurisdictions, which includes cities, countries and states across the U.S., was posted to the department's website Thursday as the administration increases the pressure on communities it believes are standing in the way of President Donald Trump 's mass deportations agenda. 'These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said. 'Sanctuary jurisdictions including cities, counties, and states that are deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities,' the department said. 'Sanctuary cities protect dangerous criminal aliens from facing consequences and put law enforcement in peril.' The list was compiled using a number of factors, including whether the cities or localities identified themselves as sanctuary jurisdictions, how much they complied already with federal officials enforcing immigration laws, if they had restrictions on sharing information with immigration enforcement or had any legal protections for people in the country illegally, according to the department.

Taylor Swift just spent millions to show the music industry who's boss
Taylor Swift just spent millions to show the music industry who's boss

Telegraph

time15 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Taylor Swift just spent millions to show the music industry who's boss

Six years, four re-recorded albums, one billion dollar-tour and headline-making break-up later, Taylor Swift finally owns the rights to her master recordings. Those not privy to the ins-and-outs of the world of Swift might not understand how big a deal this is, scoffing that it's just another way for the richest woman in music to make a few more bucks. But her fans will know better. Swift's mission to regain control of the masters of her first six albums – Taylor Swift (2006), Fearless (2008), Speak Now (2010), Red (2012), 1989 (2014) and Reputation (2017) – has been transformed from a standard business deal to a feminised David vs Goliath battle for the ages. It all began in 2019 when Swift's first record label, Big Machine, decided to sell the rights to her back catalogue to executive Scooter Braun and his company Ithaca Holdings (now Shamrock Holdings); a development she described as her 'worst case scenario' that stripped her of both creative and financial autonomy. Unable to buy her work outright, she was granted the opportunity to 'earn' back one album at a time if she continued to churn out new records for the label. And so off she toddled to rival Republic, the home of her subsequent five studio albums and four re-records (pointedly labelled 'Taylor's Versions'), safe in the knowledge her millions of fans would follow right along with her. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift) Braun became persona non grata among Swifties, seen as a ruthless suit intent on exploiting the creative output of a young female star; Swift, after all, had been a mere teenager when she wrote and recorded her first few albums. To add insult to injury, he had at one point managed her arch-nemesis Kanye West, who, after sabotaging her acceptance speech at the 2009 VMAs, continued to target her in his music. Of course, the 19-year-old Swift who once stood on stage shaking as West reprimanded her has grown up; not only that, but in the five years since her fight to regain her masters took off, she's stopped being a regular popstar and instead become the world's most recognisable, widely adored and lucratively profitable celebrity. Back then, she was part of the music industry – today, she dominates it, and thus possesses leverage that other artists could only dream of. A letter posted on Swift's website today, scrawled in her purposefully messy, twee handwriting, declared she had officially bought back the masters from Shamrock Holdings; reports of the cost circle around the $400 million mark. 'To say this is my greatest dream come true is actually being pretty reserved about it,' she wrote. A hint at what it cost came from the line 'All I've ever wanted was the opportunity to work hard enough to be able to one day purchase my music outright with no strings attached'. And why did she want it so bad? A cynic would say it's to be able to earn more, to licence her songs and videos out for films and TV of her own accord, or perhaps to even one day sell the masters on herself (as industry titans have done before her, from Springsteen to Bowie and Stevie Nicks). A loyal Swiftie might argue it's more personal than that: she wrote those albums when she was still in school, about boys she once dated who broke her heart. I fit in both camps, on the one hand a journalist who understands that this years-long fight with Braun has made Swift infinitely more famous yet decidedly easier to root for: even a billionaire needs a sob story. On the other, a fan of 20 years, who has always brought into the idea that Swift is a different kind of popstar because of the intense emotional reaction her music provokes in the women who love her music. That depth of emotion, of personal shared experiences, made it easier to understand why she'd decided to fight this fight. The content of her music is also one of the reasons, she wrote today, why she's yet to re-record Reputation, an album that has been rumoured to be on the brink of the 'Taylor's Version' treatment since the Eras tour began in Arizona two years ago. It was a love letter to ex-boyfriend Joe Alwyn, and now, happily coupled up with NFL star Travis Kelce, it seems weird she'd revisit their relationship; she says 'it's the one album in those first six that I thought couldn't be improved upon by redoing it'. Her rerecording of her eponymous debut album, by comparison, is apparently on its way. There's an emotional and financial lesson at the heart of the whole affair that proves just how savvy a businesswoman – and artist – Swift is. Instead of whiling away the days mourning her lost albums, her decision to re-record them, manually, backed by huge marketing drives, savvy merchandise and weepy Instagram captions about how much it meant to her as a songwriter, made her into a star women suddenly found it cool to idolise. Here was someone who dared to take on the might of the music biz (the male-dominated music biz!) and look! She actually won. I'm happy she did it. Swift is one of very, very few famous people powerful enough to solicit real change; since she started her re-recordings, younger artists like Olivia Rodrigo and Zara Larsson have demanded the rights to their masters be enshrined in their contracts. It makes them richer, yes. But it also grants them a degree of control not previously afforded to artists – especially female ones. Surely that's a good thing?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store