Markets cheer court ruling to block Trump tariffs
SINGORE, - U.S. stock futures jumped and the dollar gained against safe-haven peers including the yen and Swiss franc on Thursday, after a U.S. federal court blocked President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs from going into effect.
The Trump administration has appealed the ruling.
S&P 500 E-mini futures climbed 1.5% and the U.S. currency jumped 0.7% to 145.83 yen and 0.8% to 0.8339 Swiss franc.
Here are some quotes from market analysts:
MATT SIMPSON, SENIOR MARKET ANALYST, CITY INDEX, BRISBANE
"It seems inevitable the Supreme Court will be ordered to weigh in on this one, which makes today's news more of a speedbump than a full-drawn conclusion. But for now, investors get a breather from the economic uncertainty they love to loathe."
HIROFUMI SUZUKI, CHIEF FX STRATEGIST, SMBC, TOKYO
"It's certainly a blow to the Trump administration. However, it's likely that the administration will proceed with appeals and other procedures in federal court. So, this block doesn't mean that policies regarding tariffs will completely stop.
"On the other hand, this is a domestic matter for the U.S., and I think that tariff negotiations will continue.
"In the financial markets, there's an initial reaction of a stronger dollar and weaker yen. However, considering judicial processes like appeals, I don't expect a continuous rise in the dollar."
SEAN CALLOW, SENIOR ANALYST AT ITC MARKETS, SYDNEY
"The kneejerk response of markets to the CIT ruling is intriguing - rather than taking it as simple risk-on news that should benefit the likes of AUD and NZD, the U.S. dollar is the main beneficiary.
"It appears as though while there must be significant caution over the ruling being overturned by higher courts, for now the weight of money is being placed on the possibility that U.S. courts prevent the White House from self-imposed economic damage, brightening U.S. growth prospects and the USD."
RAY ATTRILL, HEAD OF FX STRATEGY, NAB, SYDNEY
"We're just trying to work out what it might mean, but obviously the market is doing a kneejerk reaction so I guess it's reversing a lot of the moves that we've seen… you know all the direction of change has been opposite to what we have seen since Liberation Day, but it's not at all clear what this means.
"The assumption is that the tariffs that have been announced and are in place will stay in place… Our assumption is President Trump will appeal this trade court's decision and he has the right to appeal... And then it will be up to the federal court and what happens there? I have no idea. So this may be an absolute storm in a teacup or potentially something more significant.
"I think it's way premature basically to say that this has the potential to reverse a lot of the moves that we've seen in the last couple of months."
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Stalin: Fear of litigation prompts Ravi to give assent to bills; still 14 bills pending
Chennai: Chief minister M K Stalin on Tuesday said governor R N Ravi could have given assent to the two bills that reserved seats in local bodies for people with disabilities (PwD) for fear of litigation. The governor's office is still sitting on 14 bills, including the Kalaignar University Bill, which proposes establishing a university named after former chief minister M Karunanidhi, sources told TOI. Asked for his response to the governor giving assent to bills passed by the assembly in its last sitting, Stalin told reporters here, "That was expected. Not a big issue. It was passed by the legislature and sent. Maybe he gave assent because he was afraid that we would go to court. Nothing else." The Supreme Court had on April 8, set a timeline for governors and the President to decide on bills. Sources told TOI that governor Ravi had since then given assent to eight bills, including four appropriation bills. Among the bills awaiting assent are the Tamil Nadu Fiscal Responsibility (Amendment) Bill and the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Bill. These were passed by the legislature in Feb and Dec 2024, respectively. Other pending bills include one to protect economically weaker sections, especially farmers and women self-help groups, from coercive recovery of loans by microfinance institutions. A bill to amend the Goondas Act to punish dumping of biomedical waste in Tamil Nadu from neighbouring states is also pending. When asked about the pending bills in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on timelines, DMK MP P Wilson stated: "Anyone who has faith in the judicial system and believes in the Constitution and the rule of law must respect the Supreme Court's verdict, as it is final. If the governor chooses to defy the court's order, the law should take its own course. However, I want to know whether the Prime Minister is encouraging such defiance of the court's order. Can the President of India remain silent to such a contemptuous act? The governor should have been sacked when the Supreme Court indicted him for malafide actions."
United News of India
38 minutes ago
- United News of India
After 18 years, SC closes petitions on Human Rights Violations by Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) Bringing closure to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court has disposed of all pending petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others concerning alleged human rights violations committed by Salwa Judum activists and security forces in Chhattisgarh. These matters had remained before the apex court for nearly 18 years. The case traces back to the Chhattisgarh government's controversial deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist/Naxalite insurgency. The SPOs, often associated with groups like the 'Koya Commandos' and Salwa Judum, were accused of committing serious rights violations in the course of anti-insurgency operations. In a landmark 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs, noting grave concerns over state-sponsored vigilantism. Despite that judgment, two writ petitions and one contempt petition remained pending until recently. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, holding that the writ petitions were closed on the ground that the reliefs sought had already been addressed through the 2011 judgment. The contempt petition, which challenged the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, was found to be outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, as it effectively sought new writs in the guise of contempt, the court ruled. The bench clarified that the enactment of a law cannot be considered contempt of court merely because it follows a judicial order. 'The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise,' the Court held. Emphasising the separation of powers, the bench reiterated that any law passed by Parliament or a State legislature must be challenged solely on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not as contempt of court. The Court underlined, 'A legislature has the power to enact or amend a law, even to remove the basis of a judicial judgment, as long as it operates within the constitutional framework.' It also noted that Courts do not have the authority to treat the exercise of legislative power as contempt, simply for enacting or amending laws. Importantly, the bench observed that restoring peace and ensuring rehabilitation in Chhattisgarh remains the constitutional responsibility of both the State and the Union, citing Article 315 of the Constitution. 'It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' the Court said. UNI SNG RN
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
US judge says prisons must provide gender-affirming care for trans inmates
A US judge on Tuesday ruled the US Bureau of Prisons must keep providing transgender inmates gender-affirming care, despite an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office to halt funding for such care. US District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., allowed a group of more than 2,000 transgender inmates in federal prisons to pursue a lawsuit challenging the order as a class action. He ordered the Bureau of Prisons to provide them with hormone therapy and accommodations such as clothing and hair-removal devices while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling does not require the bureau to provide surgical care related to gender transitions. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said the Trump administration expects to ultimately prevail in the legal dispute. "The District Court's decision allowing transgender women, aka MEN, in women's prisons fundamentally makes women less safe and ignores the biological truth that there are only two genders," Fields said in an email. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the inmates, said the ruling was "a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle." About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the US Department of Justice. About two-thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons. The named plaintiffs, two transgender men and one transgender woman, sued the Trump administration in March to challenge Trump's January 20 executive order aimed at combating what the administration called "gender ideology extremism." The executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; and house transgender women in men's prisons. It also ordered the bureau to stop spending any money on "any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex." Lamberth, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said in Tuesday's ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit because the bureau did not perform any analysis before cutting off treatment that its own medical staff had previously deemed to be medically appropriate for the inmates. Even if it had extensively studied the issue before deciding to stop gender-affirming care, the decision might still violate the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment's protections against "cruel and unusual" punishment, Lamberth wrote. The Department of Justice had argued that the judge should defer to the policy decision of a democratically elected president, but Lamberth said a functioning democracy requires respect for "all duly enacted laws," including those that blocked the executive branch from acting in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. Democratic self-governance "does not mean blind submission to the whims of the most recent election-victor," Lamberth wrote. The executive order said it was meant to promote the "dignity, safety, and wellbeing of women, and to stop the spread of "gender ideology" which denies "the immutable biological reality of sex." But the inmates receiving hormone treatments had little interest in promoting any ideology, and were instead taking "measures to lessen the personal anguish caused by their gender dysphoria," Lamberth wrote. (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Richard Chang)
