logo
Explainer-What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?

Explainer-What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?

Yahoo5 days ago
By Jan Wolfe and Dietrich Knauth
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs.
Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called "America's big case," and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead.
WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?
The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.
It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA.
A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes.
A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday.
Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes.
WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench.
The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal.
WILL TRUMP'S TARIFFS BE BLOCKED IF HE LOSES IN COURT?
A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an "administrative stay" that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief.
IS THE SUPREME COURT LIKELY TO STEP IN?
The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case.
If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6.
The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly.
HOW MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULE?
There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do.
Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action.
The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.
CAN IMPORTERS SEEK REFUNDS FOR TARIFFS PAID?
If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims.
Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade.
There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted.
Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff "stacking" — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports.
And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.
WOULD A COURTROOM DEFEAT UNRAVEL TRUMP'S TRADE DEALS?
Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations.
The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security.
Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit.
Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump orders military to target drug cartels: Report
Trump orders military to target drug cartels: Report

American Military News

time12 minutes ago

  • American Military News

Trump orders military to target drug cartels: Report

A new report claims that President Donald Trump has secretly authorized the Pentagon to use military force against Latin American drug cartels that have been designated as terrorist organizations. According to The New York Times, sources familiar with the president's directive to the Pentagon told the outlet that the U.S. military has been authorized to potentially conduct operations against certain drug cartels, which could lead to military operations in foreign countries and at sea. In a statement obtained by The New York Post, a source close to the Trump White House said, 'The president is determined to not just dismantle – but completely destroy – [Venezuelan dictator Nicolas] Maduro's Cartel de Los Soles and obliterate their operations in the Western Hemisphere.' The sources familiar with the Trump administration's plans told The New York Times that U.S. military officials have started considering options for how the Pentagon could take action against Latin American drug cartels. Asked about the report concerning Trump's directive for the Pentagon to use military force against drug cartels designated as foreign terrorist organizations, Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly stated, 'President Trump's top priority is protecting the homeland, which is why he took the bold step to designate several cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.' READ MORE: Drone strikes on Mexican drug cartels considered by Trump admin: Report In January, Trump designated multiple violent drug cartels as 'Foreign Terrorist Organizations.' 'The Cartels and other transnational organizations, such as TdA and MS-13, operate both within and outside the United States,' Trump wrote. 'They present an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency, under IEEPA, to deal with those threats.' According to The Hill, Trump announced in May that he offered to send U.S. military troops to Mexico to target various drug cartels; however, the president's order was refused by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo. 'We can collaborate. We can work together. But you in your territory, and us in ours,' Sheinbaum stated in response to Trump's offer. 'We can share information, but we will never accept the presence of the United States Army in our territory.' Following reports of the president's secret directive to the Pentagon, Sheinbaum told reporters on Friday, 'The United States is not going to come to Mexico with their military. We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will be no invasion. It's off the table, absolutely off the table.' Sheinbaum explained that the president's authorization 'had nothing to do with the participation of any military or any institution on our territory' and emphasized that there is 'no risk that they will invade our territory.'

A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up
A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up

USA Today

time12 minutes ago

  • USA Today

A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up

At least five world leaders are supporting Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Is the Nobel Peace Prize the way to President Donald Trump's heart? Some world leaders seem to think so. It started with Pakistan. Israel and Cambodia followed. And now, following Trump's "peace summit" bringing together the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan on Aug. 8, and ending decades of conflict, the two former Soviet states have promised to write a joint nomination to the Nobel committee. Trump has long coveted the Nobel Peace Prize, and his friends, including lawmakers, have nominated him for the honor numerous times. He's also mocked former President Barack Obama, who won the award in 2009 one year into his first term, saying he didn't know "what the hell he got it for." Asked by a reporter if he had any 'thoughts on the talk about President Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize,' Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said during the White House event that he would 'promote' and 'favor' such a move. Seated next to Trump, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan went on to suggest a 'joint appeal' to Norway-based Nobel Peace Prize committee. As leaders of countries 'which were at war for more than three decades, having this historic signature here, it really means a lot,' said Aliyev. 'This is tangible result of President Trump's leadership, and no one could have achieved that,' Aliyev added. Pashinyan then jokingly asked Trump if there was a draft of the nomination letter available so he could sign right there. Aliyev quickly joined in to say he'd sign, too. The only thing the leaders wanted in return? Invitation to the ceremony. "You'll be front row," Trump promised. A few minutes later a reporter asked Trump if October 10, when the Norwegian committee is slated to make the announcement, was circled on his calendar. 'I can't say,' Trump responded, adding that because he's of 'a certain persuasion, no matter what I do, they won't give it.' 'I'm not politicking for it,' said Trump. 'I have a lot of people that are.' Back in June, soon after Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir met with Trump in the wake of a four-day India-Pakistan conflict, the Pakistan government announced that it was nominating Trump for the Nobel Prize 'in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' during the conflict. India did not credit Trump with playing a role in the ceasefire. In July, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented Trump during a White House visit with a letter that he said he had sent to the Nobel committee nominating him for the prize. Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet announced on Aug. 7 that he had also nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his "direct attention to initiating and pushing for a ceasefire between the Cambodian army and Thai army" to stop the border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand. Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal

Newsom welcomes Texas Democrats who fled to foil Trump's redistricting plan
Newsom welcomes Texas Democrats who fled to foil Trump's redistricting plan

Los Angeles Times

time12 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Newsom welcomes Texas Democrats who fled to foil Trump's redistricting plan

SACRAMENTO — California became center stage for the national political fight over House seats Friday when Gov. Gavin Newsom welcomed Democratic lawmakers from Texas who fled their home state to foil President Trump's plans to redraw Congressional districts. California lawmakers plan to respond with their own plan to gerrymander districts to favor Democrats and neutralize any Republican seats gained in Texas in 2026, with a proposed map expected to become public next week, Newsom said at a press conference after meeting with the lawmakers. 'Make no mistake, California is moving forward,' the governor said. 'We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what's happening in Texas, and we will nullify what happens in Texas.' He noted that while Democrats still support the state's independent redistricting commission, they must counter Trump's plan in GOP-led states to give their party a better chance in next year's midterm election. 'They drew first blood,' he later added of Republicans. Asked about the gathering, a Trump administration spokesperson said Newsom was seeking the limelight to further his political ambitions. 'Gavin Newsom is a loser of the highest order and he will never be president, no matter how hard he prostitutes himself to the press,' said the spokesperson, Steven Cheung. Friday marked the second time in two weeks that Texas Democrats have stood next to Newsom at the California Governor's Mansion and warned that Republican efforts to draw a new map in their state would dilute the power of Black and brown voters. The Democrats hoped that their departure would leave the state Legislature with too few members present to change the map in a special session. They face $500 fines for each day of absence, as well as threats of arrest and removal from office by Gov. Greg Abbott and other Texas GOP officials. Some of the Democratic lawmakers were evacuated from a Chicago hotel where they were staying after a bomb threat on Wednesday. 'We are now facing threats — the threat that we're going to lose our jobs, the threat of financial ruin, the threat that we will be hunted down as our colleagues sit on their hands and remain silent, as we all get personal threats to our lives,' said Texas state Rep. Ann Johnson (D-Houston), one of six Texas lawmakers at the press conference, who was among those evacuated from the Chicago hotel. 'We as Democrats are standing up to ensure that the voices of every voter is lifted up in this next election, and that the next election is not stolen from them.' Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco); Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), chair of the California Democratic congressional delegation; Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg); Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and other elected officials joined the meeting in a show of unity as California Democrats attempt to convince their own state's voters to fight back. Pelosi noted that the state's congressional delegation is united in backing the redistricting proposal to counter Trump. 'The President has paved over the Rose Garden. He's paved over freedom of speech. He's paved over freedom of education, [an] independent judiciary, the rule of law,' Pelosi said. 'He's gone too far. We will not let him pave over free and fair elections in our country, starting with what he's trying to do in Texas.' She fought back against an argument some have made — that two wrongs don't make a right. 'This is self-defense for our democracy,' she said. The California plan calls for the state Legislature to approve a constitutional amendment establishing new Congressional voting districts crafted to make GOP members vulnerable. Passage of the bill would result in a special election on Nov. 4, with California voters deciding if the state should temporarily pause the congressional boundaries created by an independent redistricting commission in 2021 and adopt new maps for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. If approved by voters, the measure would include a 'trigger' specifying that it would only take effect if Texas or other Republican-led states follow through with redrawing their maps to boost GOP seats before the midterm election. California would revert to its existing redistricting law after the next census and before the 2032 election. At least so far, California voters appear uncertain about whether they want to swap Newsom's plan for the independent redistricting system they previously adopted at the ballot box. An Emerson College poll found support for redrawing California's congressional map at 33% and opposition at 25%. The survey of 1,000 registered voters, conducted Aug. 4 and 5, found that 42% were undecided. Newsom has expressed confidence that California voters will back his plan, which he is casting as a rebuttal to Trump's efforts to 'rig' the midterm elections. 'I'm confident we'll get it when people know what it is and what it's not, and I think, at the end of the day, they understand what's at stake,' Newsom said Thursday. Newsom argues that California's process is more transparent than Trump's because voters here will see the map and decide if the state should go forward with it. To fulfill Trump's request for five additional seats, Abbott is attempting to redraw House districts in Texas through a state legislative process that does not require voter approval. It's unclear what will happen in Austin, with Democrats determined to block the effort and Abbott and other Texas Republicans insisting they will keep pressing it. The current special session ends on Aug. 19. But in an interview with NBC News Thursday evening, Abbott vowed 'to call special session after special session after special session with the same agenda items on there.' In addition to arrest on civil warrants, the Democrats are facing threats of being removed from office. Direct-deposit payments to the legislators have been curtailed, forcing them to pick up their checks in person at the state capitol in Austin or go without the money. The redistricting fight has strengthened Newsom's national platform as a potential 2028 presidential contender and bolstered his reputation as a Democrat willing to take the fight to Trump and his allies. Since Trump took office in January, Newom had been walking a fine line between calling out the president and playing nice in hopes of being able to work together to rebuild from the California wildfires. But the gloves came off after Trump deployed the National Guard during federal immigration raids in Los Angeles in June, prompting the governor and his administration to much more aggressively push back on the president's conservative agenda.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store