logo
Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay

Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Thursday, a day after a U.S. trade court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court's ruling to consider the government's appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9.
Wednesday's surprise ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade had threatened to kill or at least delay the imposition of Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners and additional tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China.
US court blocks Trump's tariffs, says president exceeded his authority
The latter was related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.
The trade court's three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address threats during national emergencies.
Senior Trump administration officials had said they were undeterred by the trade court's ruling, saying they expected either to prevail on appeal or employ other presidential powers to ensure the tariffs go into effect.
Trump has used the threat of charging U.S. importers costly tariffs for goods from almost every other country in the world as leverage in international trade talks, a strategy the trade court's ruling would upend.
The trade court ruling had not interfered with any negotiations with top trading partners that are scheduled in the days ahead, Trump's administration said.
Trump himself wrote in a statement shared on social media that he hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would 'reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision' of the trade court, while lambasting the judicial branch of government as anti-American.
'The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs,' Trump wrote on Thursday evening. 'If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America.'
Many U.S. trading partners offered careful responses.
The British government said the trade court's ruling was a domestic matter for the U.S. administration and noted it was 'only the first stage of legal proceedings.' Both Germany and the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, said they could not comment on the decision.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the trade court's finding was 'consistent with Canada's longstanding position' that Trump's tariffs were unlawful.
Financial markets, which have whipsawed in response to the twists and turns in Trump's chaotic trade war, reacted with cautious optimism to the trade court ruling, though gains in stocks on Thursday were largely limited by expectations that the court's ruling faced a potentially lengthy appeals process.
Indeed, analysts said broad uncertainty remained regarding the future of Trump's tariffs, which have cost companies more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher costs, according to a Reuters analysis.
Some sector-specific tariffs, such as on imports of steel, aluminum and automobiles, were imposed by Trump under separate authorities on national security grounds and were unaffected by the ruling.
The Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit group representing five small businesses that sued over the tariffs, said the appeals court's temporary stay was a procedural step.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the center, said the appeals court would ultimately agree with the small businesses that faced irreparable harm of 'the loss of critical suppliers and customers, forced and costly changes to established supply chains, and, most seriously, a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses.'
A separate federal court earlier on Thursday also found that Trump overstepped his authority in using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for what he called reciprocal tariffs of at least 10% on goods from most U.S. trading partners and for the separate 25% levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to fentanyl.
That ruling was much narrower, however, and the relief order stopping the tariffs applied only to the toy company that brought the case. The administration has appealed that ruling as well.
Uncertainty persists
Following a market revolt after his major tariff announcement on April 2, Trump paused most import duties for 90 days and said he would hammer out bilateral deals with trade partners. But apart from a pact with Britain this month, agreements remain elusive, and the trade court's ruling on the tariffs and the uncertainty of the appeals process may dissuade countries like Japan from rushing into deals, analysts said.
'Assuming that an appeal does not succeed in the next few days, the main win is time to prepare, and also a cap on the breadth of tariffs - which can't exceed 15% for the time being,' said George Lagarias, chief economist at Forvis Mazars international advisers.
The trade court ruling would have lowered the overall effective U.S. tariff rate to about 6%, but the appellate court's emergency stay means it will remain at about 15%, according to estimates from Oxford Research.
That is the level it has been since Trump earlier this month struck a temporary truce that reduced punishing levies on Chinese goods until late summer.
Trump's new tariffs take effect, with 104% on Chinese goods
By contrast, the effective tariff rate had been between 2% and 3% before Trump returned to office in January.
Trump's trade war has shaken makers of everything from luxury handbags and sneakers to household appliances and cars as the price of raw materials has risen.
Drinks company Diageo and automakers General Motors and Ford are among those that have abandoned forecasts for the year ahead.
Non-U.S. companies including Honda, Campari, Roche and Novartis have said they are considering moving operations or expanding their U.S. presence to mitigate the impact of tariffs.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings

Business Recorder

time2 hours ago

  • Business Recorder

Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings

The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. US says it will start revoking visas for Chinese students 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.

Quit PTI, if you can't withstand pressure, Imran tells party leaders
Quit PTI, if you can't withstand pressure, Imran tells party leaders

Express Tribune

time3 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Quit PTI, if you can't withstand pressure, Imran tells party leaders

Listen to article PTI's incarcerated founder Imran Khan has delivered a clear message to his party's leadership: Either withstand mounting pressure or part ways with the party, according to PTI's legal spokesperson Naeem Haider Panjutha. Speaking to the media outside Adiala Jail on Saturday, Panjutha alleged that the judiciary has become totally subservient to the government, and that the objectives behind the 26th Constitutional Amendment have become abundantly clear as PTI leaders and supporters are being convicted and disqualified. About Saturday's proceedings of the Toshakhana 2 case, Panjutha said that the hearing was scheduled to take place inside Adiala Jail but could not proceed as planned. "Only some of the legal representatives were granted access, while others were barred from attending. As a result, no substantive proceedings occurred," he said. He added that former first lady Bushra Bibi boycotted the hearing in protest. Panjutha recalled Imran as saying during the meeting: 'Truth ultimately prevails, while falsehood is destined to fail.' The jailed PTI founder further claimed that Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) judges and others are acting in concert with the government, withholding CCTV footage related to the events of May 9. Panjutha pointed to the sentencing of MNA Latif Chitrali as evidence of what he described as a broader campaign to disqualify elected PTI lawmakers. 'If senior leaders like Yasmin Rashid and Shah Mahmood Qureshi were to leave the party today, they would likely be released,' he claimed. Drawing parallels with past judicial controversies, Panjutha alleged that former chief justice Saqib Nisar had played a role similar to that of Justice Munir in undermining judicial independence. He further criticised the electoral appeals process, claiming it is being overseen by the same Election Commission of Pakistan officials allegedly involved in electoral malpractice. According to Panjutha, Imran has directed the party to adopt a strategy of peaceful resistance, rejecting any further confrontation or violence. 'The chairman has made it clear: no more bullets. Our protests will now be peaceful,' he said. 'He will personally lead the movement from behind bars, as all other democratic avenues have been closed.' Imran, Panjutha added, considers himself a prisoner for the cause of 'Haqiqi Azadi' (real freedom). He added that all political forces believing in human rights will be invited to join PTI's protest movement. 'Participation is voluntary,' he said, 'but the movement will proceed with or without them.'

Thousands of ID cards, passports blocked over involvement in May 9 riots
Thousands of ID cards, passports blocked over involvement in May 9 riots

Express Tribune

time4 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Thousands of ID cards, passports blocked over involvement in May 9 riots

Listen to article Passports and national identity cards of thousands of individuals linked to the May 9, 2023, riots have been blocked. More than 5,500 citizens from Lahore and other cities and towns across Punjab have had their passports blacklisted, officials from the Department of Passport and Immigration told local media. The revelation came a day after Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Islamabad convicted and sentenced 11 accused to various jail terms and fines in cases related to the violence on May 9, 2023, over charges of attacking the Ramna police station, attacking policemen, setting properties on fire, and spreading terrorism. May 9 cases refer to the violent attacks on state installations in 2023 following the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan over corruption charges. Several people were arrested in these cases, which were tried and convicted by military courts as well as ATCs in different cities. Read More: 19 convicted in May 9 riots granted pardon Regarding the blocking of passports and national identity cards, sources said names were flagged based on geo-fencing data, which captured mobile or landline numbers detected near protest sites. In many cases, this data alone led to individuals being added to the blacklist, even without direct evidence of involvement. Some of those affected have submitted proof of innocence to police and law enforcement agencies. However, their names remain on the blacklist, prompting hundreds to file legal challenges in court. The Lahore High Court has taken up dozens of such cases and summoned passport officials along with relevant records. In several hearings, officials have submitted documents confirming the blacklisting of passports. Read More: Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Yasmin Rashid indicted in May 9 riots case During proceedings, it emerged that many individuals worked in nearby government or private offices and had only made calls to family members during the unrest, but were still flagged due to their mobile phone location data. In court filings, the Passport and Immigration Department stated that it does not hold the authority to add or remove names from the blacklist. That power, it said, rests with the Ministry of Interior, which manages both the blacklist and the Exit Control List (ECL). The ministry has reportedly placed names on the blacklist for any degree of involvement in the May 9 events. Those whose passports have expired cannot renew them until their names are cleared. May 9 Riots The May 9 riots erupted nationwide following the arrest of former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan, after which PTI leaders and workers staged protests targeting both civil and military installations, including Jinnah House and the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi. The military condemned the events as a "Black Day" and decided to try the protesters under the Army Act. As a result of the unrest, many PTI members were arrested and tried in military courts. In December, a military court convicted 25 individuals, including Imran Khan's nephew, Hassan Khan Niazi, and later sentenced 60 more. Also Read: Won't allow May 9 mayhem happen again In January, 19 convicts had their sentences pardoned following successful mercy appeals, although PTI expressed dissatisfaction over the limited number of pardons. The military trials had initially been halted following a Supreme Court ruling but were resumed following the court's instructions to finalize pending cases and announce judgments for those involved in the violent incidents. PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan has strongly opposed the trial of civilians in military courts, citing constitutional concerns.

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