logo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court

Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court

Al Arabiya19 hours ago
President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan, and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One.
In May, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes – tariffs – on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges – one by five businesses and one by 12 US states – into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two.
On Thursday, the 11 judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system.
The issues are so weighty – involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad – that the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court regardless of what the appeals court decides.
Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The US Constitution gives the power to impose taxes – including tariffs – to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 percent, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.
At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the US border to slap tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. Then on April 2 – 'Liberation Day,' Trump called it – he invoked IEEPA to announce reciprocal tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10 percent baseline tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself.
The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits – in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them – for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.
The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs exceed any authority granted to the President under the emergency powers law.
'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs.
In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they deal with the problem they were supposed to address.
The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum, and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to US national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term – and President Joe Biden kept – after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Colorado deputies disciplined for helping federal immigration agents
Colorado deputies disciplined for helping federal immigration agents

Al Arabiya

time6 minutes ago

  • Al Arabiya

Colorado deputies disciplined for helping federal immigration agents

Two Colorado deputies have been disciplined for violating state law by helping federal agents make immigration arrests and their sheriff says officers from other agencies have done the same. One of the deputies Alexander Zwinck was sued by Colorado's attorney general last week after his cooperation with federal immigration agents on a drug task force was revealed following the June arrest of a college student from Brazil with an expired visa. Following an internal investigation a second Mesa County Sheriff's Office deputy and task force member Erik Olson was also found to have shared information. The two deputies used a Signal chat to relay information to federal agents according to documents released Wednesday by the sheriff's office. Zwinck was placed on three weeks of unpaid leave and Olson was given two weeks of unpaid leave Mesa County Sheriff Todd Rowell said in a statement. Both were removed from the task force. Two supervisors also were disciplined. One was suspended without pay for two days and another received a letter of reprimand. A third supervisor received counseling. State laws push back against Trump crackdown The lawsuit and disciplinary actions come as lawmakers in Colorado and other Democratic-led states have crafted legislation intended to push back against President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. Since Trump took office pro-immigrant bills have advanced through legislatures in Illinois Vermont California Connecticut and other states. The measures include stronger protections for immigrants in housing employment and police encounters. Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the US illegally and detain them for potential deportation. The Republican also relaxed longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools churches and hospitals. Zwinck was sued under a new state law signed by Gov. Jared Polis about two weeks before the arrest of the student from Brazil. It bars local government employees including law enforcement from sharing identifying information about people with federal immigration officials. Previously only state agencies were barred from doing that. It's one of a series of laws limiting the state's involvement in immigration enforcement passed over the years that has drawn criticism and a lawsuit from the federal government. The US Department of Justice has also sued Illinois and New York as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey alleging their policies violate the US Constitution or federal immigration laws. Officers say they were following established procedures Zwinck and Olson told officials they thought they were operating according to long-standing procedures. However the internal investigation found they had both received and read two emails prior to the passage of the new law about previous limits on cooperation with immigration officials. The most recent was sent on Jan. 30 2025 after an official for Homeland Security Investigations part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement had asked state and local law enforcement officers at a law enforcement meeting to contact HSI or ICE if they arrested a person for a violent crime who was believed not to be a citizen the investigation documents said. The email said not to contact HSI or ICE. Zwinck said he didn't know about the new law and was not interested in immigration enforcement. 'When I was out there I wanted to find drugs, guns, and bad guys,' Zwinck said at a July 23 disciplinary hearing. 'And sending that information to HSI they provided the ability to give me real time background information on the person I was in contact with,' he said. Olson who said he had been with the sheriff's office 18 years testified at his disciplinary hearing that it was standard practice to send information up to federal agents during traffic stops. 'It was routine for ICE to show up on the back end of a traffic stop to do their thing,' Olson said. 'I truly thought what we were doing was condoned by our supervision and lawful.' A lawyer at a law firm listed as representing both deputies Michael Lowe did not immediately return a telephone call or email seeking comment. Rowell said drug task force members from other law enforcement agencies including the Colorado State Patrol also shared information with immigration agents on the Signal chat. The state patrol denied the claim. The sheriff faulted Attorney General Phil Weiser for filing the lawsuit against Zwinck before a local internal investigation was complete. He called on the Democrat who is running for governor to drop it. As it stands the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General's Office sends a demoralizing message to law enforcement officers across Colorado – that the law may be wielded selectively and publicly for maximum political effect rather than applied fairly and consistently,' he said. Weiser said last week that he was investigating whether other officers in the chat violated the law. Spokesperson Lawrence Pacheco said Weiser was presented with evidence of a blatant violation of state law and had to act. The attorney general has a duty to enforce state laws and protect Coloradans and he'll continue to do so, Pacheco said. Brown reported from Billings Montana.

Federal court denies Boston bomber's request for new judge to oversee death sentence appeal
Federal court denies Boston bomber's request for new judge to oversee death sentence appeal

Al Arabiya

timean hour ago

  • Al Arabiya

Federal court denies Boston bomber's request for new judge to oversee death sentence appeal

A federal court on Thursday denied a request by attorneys for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to remove the judge overseeing the protracted legal battle over his death sentence. The US First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument made by Tsarnaev's lawyers that US District Court Judge George O'Toole should be recused from the case because the lawyers contend he is not impartial. During an August 2024 hearing Tsarnaev's attorneys pointed to what they said were comments O'Toole made about the case on podcasts and at public events during the appeals process. In a two-page judgment released Thursday appeals court judges ruled that O'Toole should continue to preside over the case determining that two panel discussions and a podcast in which Judge O'Toole discussed various aspects of organizing complex jury trials and the problems associated with social media in that context did not constitute grounds for his removal. One of O'Toole's attorneys David E. Patton didn't immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment. A federal appeals court in March 2024 ordered O'Toole to investigate claims of juror bias by the defense and to determine whether Tsarnaev's death sentence should stand. He was convicted of helping carry out the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured hundreds of others near the marathon's finish line. It's unclear when O'Toole might rule on the juror bias issue. If he finds that jurors should have been disqualified he should vacate Tsarnaev's sentence and hold a new penalty-phase trial to determine if Tsarnaev should be sentenced to death the appeals court said. In 2022 the US Supreme Court reinstated the death sentence given to Tsarnaev after the 1st Circuit threw out the sentence in 2020. The circuit court found then that the trial judge did not sufficiently question jurors about their exposure to the extensive news coverage of the bombing. The 1st Circuit took another look at the case after Tsarnaev's lawyers urged it to examine issues the Supreme Court didn't consider. Among them was whether the trial judge wrongly forced the trial to be held in Boston and wrongly denied defense challenges to the seating of two jurors who they claim lied during questioning. Tsarnaev's guilt in the deaths of those killed in the bombing was not at issue in the appeal. His lawyers have argued that Tsarnaev fell under the influence of his older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev who was killed in a gun battle with police days after the bombing. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted of all 30 charges against him. Prosecutors portrayed the brothers – ethnic Chechens who moved to the United States from Russia more than a decade ago – as full partners in a brutal and coldblooded plan to punish the US for its wars in Muslim countries.

Trump ally Jeffrey Clark should be disbarred over 2020 election effort, DC panel says
Trump ally Jeffrey Clark should be disbarred over 2020 election effort, DC panel says

Al Arabiya

time2 hours ago

  • Al Arabiya

Trump ally Jeffrey Clark should be disbarred over 2020 election effort, DC panel says

Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department official who aided President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, should be stripped of his law license, a Washington disciplinary panel ruled on Thursday. Clark, who is now overseeing a federal regulatory office, played a key role in Trump's efforts to challenge his election loss to Joe Biden and clashed with Justice Department superiors who refused to back his false claims of fraud. The D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility's recommendation will now go to the D.C. Court of Appeals for a final decision. Under the second Trump administration, Clark has been serving as acting head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a part of the Office of Management and Budget that is responsible for reviewing executive branch regulations. OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a post on X that, 'this latest injustice is just another chapter in the Deep State's ongoing assault on President Trump and those who stood beside him in defense of the truth. JEFF CLARK has been harassed, raided, doxed and blacklisted simply for questioning a RIGGED election and serving President Trump,' she wrote. At issue in the D.C. bar proceedings was a letter that Clark, as an assistant attorney general in the first Trump administration, drafted that said the Justice Department was investigating various irregularities and had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election in Georgia and other states. Clark wanted the letter sent to Georgia lawmakers but Justice Department superiors refused. The board said disciplinary counsel proved that Clark made intentionally false statements when he continued to push for the Justice Department to issue the letter after being told by superiors that it contained falsehoods. 'Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so,' the board's report said. 'Respondent persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue. He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.' Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, argued during disciplinary hearings last year that the letter was part of the debate that normally occurs between lawyers and that punishing Clark in those circumstances would have a chilling effect. Clark's conflict with Justice Department superiors culminated in a contentious hourslong meeting at the White House on Jan. 3, 2021, in which Trump openly considered installing Clark as acting attorney general, according to a Senate Judiciary report. Several officials in the Jan. 3 meeting told Trump they would resign if he put Clark in charge at the Justice Department. Another close Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani, was disbarred in Washington last year months after he lost his law license in New York for pursuing false claims Trump made about his 2020 election loss.

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