Trump's tariffs to face major court test brought by US small business owners
Trump has underpinned his tariff policy with an emergency power that is now being challenged as unlawful in the federal courts. On Thursday the US court of appeals for the federal circuit will hear oral arguments in the case, VOS Selections v Trump.
A group of small business owners are suing the US president on grounds that he lacks legal authority from Congress to impose severe tariffs that could damage their bottom line. The Trump administration has invoked a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), claiming that various national emergencies – including US trade deficits with trading partners and the scourge of fentanyl trafficking – demand urgent action.
But the plaintiffs have countered that the IEEPA does not give the president the power to impose tariffs, and has never been used in such a way in its almost half a century on the statute books.
The case has the potential to derail Trump's most significant tariff deals and negotiations, which he has made a centrepiece of his second presidency. Given how much is riding on it, the suit is likely eventually to be settled by the US supreme court under its current 6-3 supermajority of hard-right justices.
In the short term, the challenge under the IEEPA looms as a black cloud over Trump's desire to claim victory on the tariff front, as his controversial strategy of slapping hefty import duties on major trading partners continues to roil global trade and markets. On Sunday, Trump struck a deal at his golf club in Scotland with the European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, that will see 15% import tariffs on most EU goods entering the US.
Then on Friday, a day after the appeals court hears oral arguments, Trump's latest round of potentially destabilizing import duties is set to kick in. The targeted countries include some of the biggest suppliers of US imports, including Canada and Mexico.
Trump's tariff gamble has already been deemed to be illegal by a federal court, which ruled in May that the president had overshot his powers under trade laws. That ruling was paused by the appeals court that will be hearing the case on Thursday, pending its decision.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
The IEEPA gives the president the authority to regulate transactions with foreign countries, but only under a narrow set of circumstances. In particular, the power can only be wielded where there is an 'unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared'.
The small businesses leading the suit claim that Trump has not met such a rigorous standard, and that his tariffs are thus unlawful.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
College endowment tax is leading to hiring freezes and could mean cuts in financial aid
A big increase in the tax on university endowments is adding to financial uncertainty for the wealthiest colleges in the U.S., leading several already to lay off staff or implement hiring freezes. Spending more endowment money on taxes could also lead colleges to reduce financial aid, cutting off access to elite institutions for lower-income students, colleges and industry experts have warned. President Donald Trump signed the tax increase into law last month as part of his signature spending bill. The new tax rates take effect in 2026, but colleges such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford already are citing the tax as one of many reasons for making cuts across their universities. Each will be on the hook to pay hundreds of millions more in taxes, while also navigating reductions in research grants and other threats to funding by the Trump administration. A tax on college endowments was introduced during Trump's first administration, collecting 1.4% of wealthy universities' investment earnings. The law signed by Trump last month creates a new tiered system that taxes the richest schools at the highest rates. The new tax will charge an 8% rate at schools with $2 million or more in assets for each enrolled student. Schools with $750,000 to $2 million will be charged 4%, and schools with $500,000 to $750,000 will continue to be charged the 1.4% rate. The tax applies only to private colleges and universities with at least 3,000 students, up from the previous cutoff of 500 students. 'The tax now will really solely apply to private research universities,' said Steven Bloom, assistant vice president of government relations for the American Council on Education. 'It's going to mean that these schools are going to have to spend more money under the tax, taking it away from what they primarily use their endowment assets for — financial aid.' This small group of wealthy colleges faces a tax increase The law will increase the endowment tax for about a dozen universities, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from the National Association of College and University Business Officers. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are expected to pay the 8% rate next year. The schools facing the 4% rate include Notre Dame, Dartmouth College, Rice University, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University in St. Louis and Vanderbilt University. Some universities are on the edge of the law's parameters. Both Duke and Emory, for instance, were shy of the $750,000-per-student endowment threshold based on last fiscal year. Endowments are made up of donations to the college, which are invested to maintain the money over time. Colleges often spend about 5% of their investment earnings every year to put toward their budgets. Much of it goes toward scholarships for students, along with costs such as research or endowed faculty positions. Despite the colleges' wealth, the tax will drastically impact their budgets, said Phillip Levine, an economist and professor at Wellesley College. 'They're looking for savings wherever possible,' Levine said, which could impact financial aid. ' One of the most important things they do with their endowment is lower the cost of education for lower- and middle-income students. The institutions paying the highest tax are also the ones charging these students the least amount of money to attend.' For example, at Rice University in Houston, officials anticipate the college will need to pay $6.4 million more in taxes. That equates to more than 100 student financial aid packages, the university said, but Rice officials will explore all other options to avoid cutting that support. How colleges are adjusting to financial pressures In the meantime, some universities are going forward with staff cuts. Yale University says it will have to pay an estimated $280 million in total endowment taxes, citing the tax in a campus message implementing a hiring freeze. Stanford University announced plans to reduce its operating budget by $140 million this upcoming school year, which included 363 layoffs and an ongoing hiring freeze. The university spent months trying to determine where to reduce its budget, but said it would continue to support undergraduate financial aid and funding for Ph.D. students. Research universities are under increasing financial pressure from reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. No university knows this pressure better than Harvard, the country's wealthiest college. Its $53 billion endowment puts it at the top of the list for the new tax, but it's also seeing massive portions of research funding under threat in its ongoing battle with the White House. The federal government has frozen $2.6 billion in Harvard's research grants in connection with civil rights investigations focused on antisemitism and Harvard's efforts to promote diversity on campus. But the impact of other administration policies on the university could approach $1 billion annually, Harvard said in a statement. 'It's not like Harvard is going to go from one of the best institutions in the world to just a mediocre institution. That's probably not going to happen," Levine said. 'But that doesn't mean it's not going to be a bad thing — that there won't be pain and that students won't suffer.' ___ Mumphrey reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye in Philadelphia contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
GSK to be paid up to £370 million after patent row settles in US
Drug maker GSK has secured a payment of up to 500 million dollars (£372 million) after a patent row over Covid vaccines was settled in the US. GSK told investors it will receive a 370 million dollar (£275 million) settlement from CureVac, which it had worked with on the development of mRNA vaccine technology. The London-based business will then be entitled to receive an additional 130 million dollars (£97 million) depending on if a planned takeover of CureVac by BioNTech closes, which would settle a lawsuit outside of the US. CureVac – a German pharmaceutical company – settled a long-running patent dispute with rival BioNTech and Pfizer in the US on Thursday. Drug makers had launched several lawsuits over alleged patent infringement in relation to their Covid-19 vaccines. CureVac said that, under the terms of the settlement, it would grant BioNTech and Pfizer a licence to make, use, and sell mRNA-based Covid and influenza jabs. The firms also agreed that GSK would take 1% of the royalties from the vaccine sales in the US from the beginning of 2025. The cash payment to GSK stems from its partnership with CureVac which was first struck in 2020. GSK remains in dispute with Pfizer and BioNTech in the US and Europe over alleged infringement of its own patents. Shares in GSK rose by as much as 1.7% on Friday morning. Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis for AJ Bell, said: 'Pharmaceutical giant GSK was also among the gainers on Friday morning as it secured a positive outcome from the settlement of a patent dispute involving CureVac with which it has a licence agreement. 'The dispute related to mRNA vaccines and gives GSK a modest, though still welcome, cash injection and the prospect of sales royalties.'
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's attempts to distance himself from the Epstein files are failing
One of Trump's preternatural abilities is his apparent animal instinct to lie on the spot whenever he senses he might be cornered. His initial Pavlovian training by his mob lawyer Roy Cohn and subsequent experience in more than 4,000 lawsuits and countless scandals seem to have ingrained in him that lying, the more outrageous the better, buys him time, plays to his credulous followers as insouciant defiance, and wears down his accusers. When Trump's distractions failed to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein files, he offered a story without missing a beat to distance himself from any taint. In his tale, he was traduced by Epstein. Trump was taken advantage of, violated, despoiled. There could be no guilt by association; Trump was a victim, too. Perhaps, after claiming to no effect that Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the former FBI director James Comey had fabricated the files, he felt that he had at last found ground where he could gain some traction. Trump always designates a scapegoat, but neither Tren de Agua nor Hunter Biden would fit with Epstein. All along, Trump has missed the easiest and most obvious scapegoat. Why not blame Epstein for Epstein? Trump just needed to invent a story. He began by blurting on 28 July: 'But for years, I wouldn't talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn't talk because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help, and I said, 'Don't ever do that again.' He stole people that worked for me. I said, 'Don't ever do that again.' He did it again. And I threw him out of the place – persona non grata. I threw him out, and that was it. I'm glad I did, if you want to know the truth.' After establishing the premise of his story, he added more detail the next day. 'People that work in the spa – I have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago – and people were taken out of the spa, hired by him. In other words, gone. And other people would come and complain, 'This guy is taking people from the spa.' I didn't know that. He took people that worked for me. And I told him, 'Don't do it any more.' And he did it. I said, 'Stay the hell out of here.'' A reporter followed up to ask if any of those employees were young women, an opportunity for further Trump story enhancement. 'The answer is yes, they were in the spa,' Trump said. 'I told him, I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa' … And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again.' Then Trump was asked if one of those young women was Virginia Giuffre, who was exploited by Epstein beginning at age 16 in 2000 until she escaped his clutches in 2002, eventually filing lawsuits against him that helped break the case open. 'I think she worked at the spa,' Trump replied. 'I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her.' He added, 'And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know – none whatsoever.' Trump's self-defensive remarks were an accumulation of lies and distortions, each one at risk of tumbling on the next. Unfortunately, it was contradicted by the factual timeline. And his comments about Giuffre, the tragically abused child who bore witness, for whom he offered not a word of sympathy, depicting her as stolen property, offended the Giuffre family, who came forward to denounce his heartlessness. 'It was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been 'stolen' from Mar-a-Lago,' read the family's statement. This was not the public relations success that Trump had hoped for to lay the Epstein scandal to rest. Trump suggested in his story that Giuffre was only one of the 'people' Epstein had poached from him. In his telling, he first warned Epstein before he 'stole' Giuffre. In fact, it was Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend and accomplice, who recruited Giuffre and participated in her sexual abuse. There is no record of others than Giuffre recruited from the Mar-a-Lago spa. Trump's story of multiple 'people' and his warning to Epstein are baseless. Still, the ever reliable White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated: 'The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.' Trump went on Newsmax to praise her, the press secretary, as if she were the winner of a modeling contest: 'She's become a star. It's that face, it's that brain, it's those lips, the way they move, they move like she's a machine gun.' It was true Trump had not spoken 'for years' to Epstein. But there his truthfulness ended. Three years after Trump claimed he had cut his ties to Epstein for stealing Giuffre, in 2003, Trump sent him a risqué poem celebrating his 50th birthday inside his drawing of a naked woman, signing his name to represent pubic hair, according to the Wall Street Journal. 'We have certain things in common, Jeffrey … A pal is a wonderful thing … and may every day be a wonderful secret.' According to the Washington Post, their relationship ruptured not in 2000 as Trump claimed, but in 2004 over a real estate rivalry to purchase a Palm Beach estate. Trump, whose casinos went bankrupt that year, somehow found the cash to outbid Epstein. Four years later, Trump sold the estate to a Russian oligarch closely tied to Vladimir Putin for double the price, at $95m. 'Don't say Russian,' Trump told a reporter from the Palm Beach Post. He urged the reporter just to write 'foreign'. Trump and Epstein socialized together for years with 'young women', some underage, and often with models, including a party for 'calendar girls' at Mar-a-Lago in 1992, where the two were the only other guests, and Trump's alleged groping of the model Stacey Williams in Trump Tower with Epstein present in 1993. Trump denies these allegations. 'Epstein enjoyed hanging out backstage at beauty pageants and fashion shows with his Palm Beach and New York neighbor and friend Donald Trump, former models said,' the Miami Herald reported. Trump himself owned three beauty pageants. He described going backstage on the Howard Stern radio talk show in 2005: 'You know they're standing there with no clothes … And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.' Trump created Trump Model Management, also known as T Models, in 1999. T Models recruited girls as young as 14 to the US on tourist visas with lavish promises of fame and fortune, and once they arrived paid them minimally. 'It is like modern-day slavery,' said one of the models, Rachel Blais. 'Honestly, they are the most crooked agency I've ever worked for, and I've worked for quite a few.' Epstein wanted a modeling agency of his own. He admired Trump's T Models and sought to replicate it. He invested in one based in Paris operated by Jean-Luc Brunel, a model agency head who was also accused of sex trafficking. Courtney Powell Soerensen, a model, told the Miami Herald: 'Epstein had to have his slimy peons and Brunel was the ideal person to do the job.' Brunel had been the subject of a 60 Minutes exposé as an alleged sexual abuser of models in 1988. In New York, in the 1990s, Brunel lived in Trump Tower. 'The modeling agency was the perfect vehicle for Epstein to get more victims,' Giuffre said. Heather Braden, a model, told the Miami Herald she saw Brunel, Epstein and Trump at parties together frequently in the early 1990s. Brunel was charged with rape in 2021 and died by apparent suicide in a French prison in 2022, about two years after Epstein's apparent suicide. Trump had never before told his self-exonerating story about how he had broken with Epstein over Giuffre. But he had spoken publicly about his relationship with Epstein in 2002, when he rejoiced in their friendship to New York magazine: 'Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.' Little remarked upon in the citation of this quote was that Trump's response to the writer appears intended to offer a more positive and vivid picture of Epstein, at least in Trump's eyes, than the reclusive and serious image Epstein was trying to promote. Trump's description was preceded in the article by this set-up: 'Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges.' Trump, always seeking to elevate himself, preened in talking about Epstein as following his example as a Casanova. Now he continues to stonewall the public over the Epstein files. Days after Maxwell was interviewed by the deputy attorney general Todd Blanche in her Florida prison, she was granted transfer to a minimal security penitentiary in Texas. Her move heightens the intrigue surrounding her deposition, which the administration is keeping secret despite calls by Democratic senators for its release. By invoking Giuffre, Trump has activated her family. They were enraged by the favor suddenly granted to Maxwell and wonder whether it is part of a deal. 'President Trump has sent a clear message today: pedophiles deserve preferential treatment and their victims do not matter,' read their statement. 'This move smacks of a cover-up. The victims deserve better.' Trump's ill-conceived story about Giuffre has undermined rather than bolstered him in maintaining control of the storyline. Sidney Blumenthal is a Guardian US columnist
