A Trade Court Rebuke of Trump's Tariffs Offers Little Relief to Canada
For a fleeting moment, it looked as if Canada's trade troubles were over. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on Wednesday that President Trump did not have 'unbounded authority' to impose many of his tariffs, including some against Canada.
In another blow to Mr. Trump, it ordered an immediate end to collection of the tariffs.
[Read: Trump Tariffs Ruled Illegal by Federal Judicial Panel]
But then came the sobering, not-so-fine print.
The case focused on the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which for Canada is based on the false claim that large amounts of fentanyl cross the border from Canada to the United States. So the ruling affected the sweeping tariffs against Canadian exports that were imposed under that law, but it did not affect Mr. Trump's 25 percent duties on Canadian cars, auto parts, steel and aluminum, which were imposed using other laws. (The auto parts tariff had previously been suspended.)
And products from Canada that meet minimum North American content levels under the currently tattered free trade agreement among Canada, the United States and Mexico were already exempt.
Still, Prime Minister Mark Carney told the House of Commons that he welcomed the decision. But he added, 'We recognize that our trading relationship with the U.S. is still profoundly and adversely affected.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jim Cramer and Wall Street Are Bullish on Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE:COF)
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE:COF) stands against other stocks on Jim Cramer and Wall Street's radar. During April 24's episode of Squawk on the Street, Cramer made the following comment about Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE:COF): 'We own Capital One. Now I don't know… people… in your world, this Capital One, it got approved, and, and, Fairbank is gonna stand there after this thing closes, and I think he's gonna buy back a ton of stock because his stock is really cheap and he's a reaallyy good banker […] Capital One, they're supposed to be missing the quarter, people are supposed to be defaulting. It is the oddest time, it's the strangest angst, David, I see people having angst and doing crazy things. They have angst, and they're paying off their credit. You know when you have angst, you default.' A smiling face of a customer as they make a deposit at this company's branch. Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE:COF) provides a broad range of financial services, including banking, lending, and credit products. The company offers checking and savings accounts, various types of loans, and digital banking services to individuals, small businesses, and commercial clients. On May 21, BofA analyst Mihir Bhatia increased the price target for Capital One (NYSE:COF) to $233 from $223 and maintained a Buy rating after the recent acquisition of Discover Financial. The analyst highlighted that the closed-loop Discover network provides significant strategic opportunities that could strengthen Capital One's deposit, banking, and card businesses. The firm noted that credit metrics are improving and expects expense synergies to be easily attainable. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Discrimination cases unravel as Trump scraps core civil rights tenet
The Justice Department now is reviewing its entire docket and has already dismissed or terminated 'many' cases that were 'legally unsupportable' and a product of 'weaponization' under the Biden administration, said Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We will fully enforce civil rights laws in a way that satisfies the ends of justice, not politicization,' she said in a statement to The Washington Post. Advertisement The review includes cases and reform agreements forged after years-long investigations that the administration says lacked justification. Civil rights experts estimate that dozens of discrimination cases involving banks, landlords, private employers, and school districts could face similar action. 'What we're seeing is an attempt by the Trump administration to really dismantle a lot of the core tools that we use to ensure equality in the country,' said Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel and comanager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit that has long advocated for the civil rights of Black Americans and other minorities. Advertisement At the center of this effort is 'disparate impact analysis,' which holds that neutral policies can have discriminatory outcomes even if there was no intent to discriminate. The legal standard stems from Griggs v. Duke Power, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision that became a staple of civil rights litigation. In that case, attorneys relied on statistical evidence to show how standardized testing prevented Black employees in North Carolina from advancing at the energy company. The legal theory has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, written into federal regulations and enshrined into employment law by Congress. But President Trump declared it unconstitutional in April, issuing an executive order that kicked off an intense review of civil rights regulations, enforcement actions, and settled cases. Now, government agreements and orders that relied on disparate impact in pursuing sex, race, and disability discrimination cases are being undone. On May 23, for example, the Justice Department terminated an agreement with Patriot Bank, a Tennessee-based lender accused of failing to lend in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods in Memphis, from 2015 to 2020. Prosecutors used statistical evidence to show disparities in the bank's lending practices alongside evidence of intentional discrimination, such as targeting most of its advertising in majority-white neighborhoods. A three-year agreement to reform its lending practices had been in place for a little over a year before Trump's Justice Department moved to end it, noting the bank was in compliance with the reform agreement. Patriot declined to comment. Civil rights advocates worry about the future of similar enforcement. Advertisement Disparate impact has long been anathema to conservatives, who say it can result in quotas and deny equal opportunity to white people. But past Republican administrations opted not to take this issue on, partly because of Supreme Court precedent and partly because it might prove politically unpopular. 'What changed is just political will,' said Kenneth L. Marcus, who headed the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights during both George W. Bush's administration and Trump's first term. 'The second Trump administration is more willing to take on potentially contentious civil rights issues than any Republican administration this century.' Trump issued a slew of executive orders to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs - calling them 'illegal and immoral' days after he returned to the White House in January - and ordered the government to close diversity offices and fire staff. His administration has since launched investigations into corporations, law firms and colleges over their diversity initiatives, while going to battle with Harvard University for its refusal to comply with a set of demands to alter its governance, admissions, and hiring practices. When Trump set his sights on disparate impact in April, he called it a 'pernicious movement' that ignores 'individual strengths, effort or achievement.' He ordered federal agencies to review any cases and reform agreements that rely on the theory - and terminate them as they see fit. The actions are long overdue, said Dan Morenoff, executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit law firm that opposes the use of disparate impact and diversity initiatives. He contends that the government's use of disparate impact has been, in many cases, legally dubious, adding that its assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Advertisement 'The people who most appreciate disparate impact appear, usually, to be deeply wed to the idea that any discrepancies are best explained by discrimination,' he said. The Supreme Court most recently upheld the use of disparate impact analysis in a 2015 housing case. But that decision was decided on a 5-4 vote in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives believe the court's current conservative supermajority might give them their wished-for outcome. 'It's clear what the Trump administration is aiming for is to get this question to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court will take that tool away,' said Smirniotopoulos of the Legal Defense Fund. The rollbacks are already underway. In 2023, the Justice Department alleged that Atlanta-based Ameris Bank avoided providing home loans to Black and Latino home buyers in Jacksonville, Florida, in a practice known as redlining. The bank almost exclusively advertised in majority-White neighborhoods and made little effort to do business in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods, according to its lawsuit. Only 2.7 percent of Ameris's mortgages went to borrowers in Black and Latino communities from 2016 to 2021, the complaint said, while its competitors issued more than three times as many loans during that window. Ameris knew about the disparities but failed to correct them, the government alleged. Though it admitted no wrongdoing, Ameris quickly settled the case, agreeing to a set of measures whose progress would be monitored by the court. Then, on May 19, the Justice Department moved to unwind the settlement, saying that the bank has 'demonstrated a commitment to remediation' while freeing it from its legal obligations to implement the reforms. The bank did not object to the move. Prosecutors did note that Ameris had disbursed the entirety of a $7.5 million loan subsidy fund for borrowers in Black and Latino neighborhoods. Advertisement A judge granted the request a day later. Ameris declined to comment. The government moved to terminate cases involving two banks in Alabama and Tennessee that had agreed to court-monitored reforms tied to allegations of discriminatory lending practices. It also moved to dismiss a case in Kinloch, Mo., against property managers accused of refusing to rent to prospective Black tenants at disproportionate rates. There are at least eight other housing and lending cases across seven states that are similarly candidates for dismissal, according to a review. While the administration blamed the Biden administration for mishandling these cases, it has also dismissed cases going back decades. It did not directly concern disparate impact, but the Justice Department in April dismissed a 1966 consent order with a Louisiana school district concerning its desegregation efforts.
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Bonus Episode: Suge Knight Weighs In From Prison - Trial By Jury: Diddy - Podcast on CNN Audio
Bonus Episode: Suge Knight Weighs In From Prison Trial By Jury: Diddy 13 mins This week, Laura interviewed Marion 'Suge' Knight about the ongoing trial of his longtime music industry rival Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Knight, who is currently serving a 28-year-sentence on a manslaughter charge, talked from a prison phone about the way the industry takes advantage of artists, what has and hasn't surprised him about the allegations against Combs, and why he thinks the prosecution's efforts might fail. We bring you their conversation in a weekend bonus episode.
