Latest news with #AGs'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
‘That's What Sold It': Why the Court Ruled Against Trump's Tariffs
When a coalition of Democratic attorneys general sued to block a large chunk of Donald Trump's tariffs, they expressed confidence they'd win in court. But even some of them seemed pleasantly surprised after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the administration unanimously and unequivocally on Wednesday night. 'You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was,' Dan Rayfield, the Oregon attorney general leading the states' lawsuit, told POLITICO Magazine as he fielded texts from happy supporters. The decision, from a three-judge panel featuring appointees of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Trump himself, 'creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right.' Rayfield spoke to us earlier this month about the AGs' strategy in challenging Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose wide-ranging tariffs, and we caught up with him again Thursday morning in the wake of the court's ruling. Even as the Trump administration moved to challenge the ruling and received a stay, Rayfield expressed optimism about their chances in the appeals court — and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Rayfield notes that the judges — who were ruling on the AGs' suit and another lawsuit against the tariffs brought by businesses — dismissed the Trump administration's argument that its legal claim of emergency authority on trade was a 'political question' beyond judicial review. 'I think that's a really tough argument to make,' Rayfield said. 'Because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable.' Markets surged on the news of the tariff ruling Thursday morning, amid some hopes that the ruling could provide Trump a convenient off-ramp from his divisive tariff program. But Rayfield wasn't convinced of that even before the administration signaled it would continue fighting for the tariffs. 'I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary,' he said. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Attorney General Rayfield, this is a pretty big win — for the moment — for you and the other 11 attorneys general… That's not a lot of optimism there, Joe. You know, a lot can happen, it's a chaotic environment. But it's a big win for you and the other AGs who brought the suit challenging a huge swath of the Trump tariffs. What's the chatter among you and your attorney general colleagues — what's the mood? Well, this broke obviously [Wednesday] evening, and everybody was looking at the decision. That's the first thing you do, right? You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was. People always want to know where were those judges appointed? Two of them were Republican appointed judges. Now, I think that [question of who appointed each judge] plays into this narrative that judges are political, which I absolutely do not like, because I really believe that judges try to avoid that, but it is a reality of our world. People always want to get into those details, because I think conservative folks are looking for those third-party validators in that space. So this creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right. The one sentiment that really was overwhelming for all of us: Hey, unanimous. You've got this nice talking point to show: that it is a bipartisan panel of judges that ruled in this way. You have judges that are incredibly educated and judges that applied the prior case law in this space. I think it was also very telling in the way that the court hearing went last week, where you had the Trump lawyers coming in basically saying, 'Hey, you can't review anything we do with emergency orders. And you can't review anything we do with respect to IEEPA. Those are all political questions.' And I think that spirit in the decision really came out, [with the court] kind of saying; 'No, that's not right. And frankly, Congress never intended that.' When we spoke earlier this month, you were confident that the facts of the case and the merits of the case — that the tariffs had exceeded the authority granted by Congress — were strong, and obviously the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed. The administration has already appealed the ruling — can you lay out what comes next, and how you're expecting those same arguments to land as you reach the appellate courts, and if you ultimately reach the Supreme Court? The first step will be the federal circuit in D.C., and so we'll move into that space. And this is a very interesting thing: This was a judgment on the merits. A lot of the cases that you've been seeing are these rulings on preliminary injunctions. This was a summary judgment ruling on the merits for this case. I think that what is very helpful is you go from a specialty court — a court that has been really educated in the issues of trade and the laws and the history — into the federal circuit. I think the arguments that we're making are very palpable and convey very nicely into an appellate court in that scenario. What you'll have is the Trump administration coming back and making the same darn arguments, right? And I think they really want to have a ruling in the federal circuit that says, 'Hey, this is a political question issue. You don't get to question the president and you and judges certainly don't get to make factual determinations on this statute. That's not your role.' I think that's a really tough argument to make, because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable. You could make an emergency on anything. I could say that our export of hockey players into Canada is incredibly alarming, and it's creating an advantage to Canadian hockey teams. And so this is an emergency, okay? That emergency isn't reviewable, then I could say, 'You know what? I am going to put a 1,000 percent tariff on Canadian maple syrup. So I can create leverage and really bring back balance to American hockey teams versus Canadian hockey teams. And none of that is reviewable by a court.' And I think that when you really start looking at the importance of constitutional separation of powers, co-equal branches of government, and no one branch having too much power, this really starts to tilt the scales if you really take the president's arguments at face value. And I think that's what sold it. I think those same arguments have salience. I know they have saliency in every level of court. But it'll be interesting to see, do the Trump administration's arguments continue in this vein, or do they recognize that this is, constitutionally, a really big challenge? The other thing that I think is fascinating: I think that the Trump administration is entirely short-sighted. These democratic principles are meant as a check against Democratic presidents and Republican presidents alike. If you play this out, a Democratic president could get into office, create an emergency on firearms — I think 40 percent of our firearms in the United States are imported, or at least components of them are — and you can really start extrapolating out. Irrespective of party, this is a real problem and really tugs at the fundamental strings of why we have the rule of law in place. The markets rallied in the morning after the ruling — do you think, in more political terms, that this ruling actually could give the president an exit strategy on some of this tariff agenda, which has proven so controversial? It's an interesting question. I believe that if you take the Trump presidency and his administration at face value, they really do believe in tariffs, in using that as leverage in some of these conversations. And I think he could continue to pursue that strategy via Article 19 [trade rules] — he won't be able to do everything under that — but that's what Congress intended. I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary, but it will be interesting to see how they pivot, if they pivot, moving forward. Have you talked to Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek about the ruling? The governor texted me last night. There are a bunch of times in my life when I've gotten a ton of text messages. Every election that you win, you get a ton of text messages from people that you didn't know were your friends, and that are your long-lost friends. And then when I became speaker. And then there were a ton of text messages yesterday from you name it — friends, family, small businesses and elected officials as well.
Politico
3 days ago
- Business
- Politico
‘That's What Sold It': Why the Court Ruled Against Trump's Tariffs
When a coalition of Democratic attorneys general sued to block a large chunk of Donald Trump's tariffs, they expressed confidence they'd win in court. But even some of them seemed pleasantly surprised after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the administration unanimously and unequivocally on Wednesday night. 'You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was,' Dan Rayfield, the Oregon attorney general leading the states' lawsuit, told POLITICO Magazine as he fielded texts from happy supporters. The decision, from a three-judge panel featuring appointees of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Trump himself, 'creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right.' Rayfield spoke to us earlier this month about the AGs' strategy in challenging Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose wide-ranging tariffs, and we caught up with him again Thursday morning in the wake of the court's ruling. Even as the Trump administration moved to challenge the ruling and received a stay, Rayfield expressed optimism about their chances in the appeals court — and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Rayfield notes that the judges — who were ruling on the AGs' suit and another lawsuit against the tariffs brought by businesses — dismissed the Trump administration's argument that its legal claim of emergency authority on trade was a 'political question' beyond judicial review. 'I think that's a really tough argument to make,' Rayfield said. 'Because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable.' Markets surged on the news of the tariff ruling Thursday morning, amid some hopes that the ruling could provide Trump a convenient off-ramp from his divisive tariff program. But Rayfield wasn't convinced of that even before the administration signaled it would continue fighting for the tariffs. 'I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary,' he said. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Attorney General Rayfield, this is a pretty big win — for the moment — for you and the other 11 attorneys general… That's not a lot of optimism there, Joe. You know, a lot can happen, it's a chaotic environment. But it's a big win for you and the other AGs who brought the suit challenging a huge swath of the Trump tariffs. What's the chatter among you and your attorney general colleagues — what's the mood? Well, this broke obviously [Wednesday] evening, and everybody was looking at the decision. That's the first thing you do, right? You sit there and you say, 'Hey, was this panel unanimous?' And it was. People always want to know where were those judges appointed? Two of them were Republican appointed judges. Now, I think that [question of who appointed each judge] plays into this narrative that judges are political, which I absolutely do not like, because I really believe that judges try to avoid that, but it is a reality of our world. People always want to get into those details, because I think conservative folks are looking for those third-party validators in that space. So this creates a little bit of cognitive dissonance for folks that trend right. The one sentiment that really was overwhelming for all of us: Hey, unanimous. You've got this nice talking point to show: that it is a bipartisan panel of judges that ruled in this way. You have judges that are incredibly educated and judges that applied the prior case law in this space. I think it was also very telling in the way that the court hearing went last week, where you had the Trump lawyers coming in basically saying, 'Hey, you can't review anything we do with emergency orders. And you can't review anything we do with respect to IEEPA. Those are all political questions.' And I think that spirit in the decision really came out, [with the court] kind of saying; 'No, that's not right. And frankly, Congress never intended that.' When we spoke earlier this month, you were confident that the facts of the case and the merits of the case — that the tariffs had exceeded the authority granted by Congress — were strong, and obviously the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed. The administration has already appealed the ruling — can you lay out what comes next, and how you're expecting those same arguments to land as you reach the appellate courts, and if you ultimately reach the Supreme Court? The first step will be the federal circuit in D.C., and so we'll move into that space. And this is a very interesting thing: This was a judgment on the merits. A lot of the cases that you've been seeing are these rulings on preliminary injunctions. This was a summary judgment ruling on the merits for this case. I think that what is very helpful is you go from a specialty court — a court that has been really educated in the issues of trade and the laws and the history — into the federal circuit. I think the arguments that we're making are very palpable and convey very nicely into an appellate court in that scenario. What you'll have is the Trump administration coming back and making the same darn arguments, right? And I think they really want to have a ruling in the federal circuit that says, 'Hey, this is a political question issue. You don't get to question the president and you and judges certainly don't get to make factual determinations on this statute. That's not your role.' I think that's a really tough argument to make, because if you agree — and this is what I think sold it — if you agree with President Trump's lawyers' assessment, nothing is reviewable. You could make an emergency on anything. I could say that our export of hockey players into Canada is incredibly alarming, and it's creating an advantage to Canadian hockey teams. And so this is an emergency, okay? That emergency isn't reviewable, then I could say, 'You know what? I am going to put a 1,000 percent tariff on Canadian maple syrup. So I can create leverage and really bring back balance to American hockey teams versus Canadian hockey teams. And none of that is reviewable by a court.' And I think that when you really start looking at the importance of constitutional separation of powers, co-equal branches of government, and no one branch having too much power, this really starts to tilt the scales if you really take the president's arguments at face value. And I think that's what sold it. I think those same arguments have salience. I know they have saliency in every level of court. But it'll be interesting to see, do the Trump administration's arguments continue in this vein, or do they recognize that this is, constitutionally, a really big challenge? The other thing that I think is fascinating: I think that the Trump administration is entirely short-sighted. These democratic principles are meant as a check against Democratic presidents and Republican presidents alike. If you play this out, a Democratic president could get into office, create an emergency on firearms — I think 40 percent of our firearms in the United States are imported, or at least components of them are — and you can really start extrapolating out. Irrespective of party, this is a real problem and really tugs at the fundamental strings of why we have the rule of law in place. The markets rallied in the morning after the ruling — do you think, in more political terms, that this ruling actually could give the president an exit strategy on some of this tariff agenda, which has proven so controversial? It's an interesting question. I believe that if you take the Trump presidency and his administration at face value, they really do believe in tariffs, in using that as leverage in some of these conversations. And I think he could continue to pursue that strategy via Article 19 [trade rules] — he won't be able to do everything under that — but that's what Congress intended. I don't know if exit strategy is in the Trump vocabulary, but it will be interesting to see how they pivot, if they pivot, moving forward. Have you talked to Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek about the ruling? The governor texted me last night. There are a bunch of times in my life when I've gotten a ton of text messages. Every election that you win, you get a ton of text messages from people that you didn't know were your friends, and that are your long-lost friends. And then when I became speaker. And then there were a ton of text messages yesterday from you name it — friends, family, small businesses and elected officials as well.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Attempt to bully employers': Andrea Campbell, 15 other AGs teaming up to preserve DEI practices
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell is teaming up with AGs of 15 other states in an attempt to preserve diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the workplace. The multi-state coalition claims the federal government does not have the authority to prohibit DEI practices. 'The President's Order is an attempt to bully employers into eliminating lawful policies that we know reduce complaints of illegal discrimination, increase a company's bottom line, and improve workforce culture and consumer experience,' said AG Campbell. 'I am proud to partner with my AG colleagues to empower businesses and encourage them to be courageous in maintaining their lawful diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs.' The 16 AGs claim that 'companies in the top quartile for diversity were 35% more likely to have financial gains above their respective industry counterparts.' The AGs' statement also provided best practices for professional development and retention including: • Ensuring equal access to all aspects of professional development, training and mentor programs that provide clear pathways for career growth. • Setting up Employee Resource Groups ('ERGs') to create inclusive and supportive spaces where employees of particular backgrounds or common experiences feel valued and heard. • Conducting training on topics such as unconscious bias, inclusive leadership and disability awareness to improve employee confidence and create a shared understanding around cultural norms. • Ensuring equal access to all aspects of employment, including through reasonable workplace accommodations. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Axios
06-02-2025
- Sport
- Axios
National Women's Soccer League reaches $5 million settlement after abuse investigation
The National Women's Soccer League has agreed to establish a $5 million fund for players harmed by abuse or harassment as part of a settlement stemming from over a decade of allegations. Why it matters: The settlement comes years after players risked their careers and publicly shared stories of mental, verbal and sexual misconduct, including allegations against former Chicago Red Stars coach Rory Dames, who was never criminally charged and denied wrongdoing. Driving the news: Illinois, New York and Washington, D.C. attorneys general on Wednesday announced the settlement with the league after they say they found "the NWSL was permeated by a culture of inappropriate and abusive behavior, including sexual harassment and harassment and discrimination based upon gender, race, and sexual orientation." The announcement was made on National Girls and Women in Sports Day. Zoom in: The AGs' report says that as far back as 2013 the league was aware of verbal and emotional abuse, including examples of racism and sexist harassment detailed in players' complaints, but those complaints were largely ignored. As early as 2015 NWSL knew that a coach had been sexually harassing players and the coach was moved to another team rather than removed from the league, the AGs' investigation found. Flashback: In 2022, U.S. Soccer released the findings of an independent investigation led by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates that revealed systemic verbal, physical and sexual abuse across the league. State of play: In addition to the $5 million restitution fund, the settlement requires unlimited free mental health services for players and the establishment of a system of accountability within the NWSL. What they're saying:"This $5 million restitution fund is not a gift, nor is it justice. This fund exists because players refused to be silenced and we found the courage to stand together as a collective," NWSL Players Association president and former player Tori Huster said at a press conference. "This fund is an acknowledgment of the league's failures, and the pain suffered by players. It's a testament to the players' courage and a necessary step toward accountability." The other side: "We remain grateful to the many brave individuals who came forward to share their experiences, which has informed our approach to systemic reform. The NWSL is proud of the work we have done, in partnership with the NWSL Players Association, to set the standard for professional sports leagues," NWSL commissioner Jessica Berman said in a statement. What's next: A retired judge will serve as administrator of the fund and has up to 45 days to develop a plan and submit that plan to the attorneys general for approval. Once approved, the administrator will notify players no less than 15 days prior to the fund's opening. Once open, players will then have six months to apply.
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ocean State plays starring role in 30-minute virtual hearing
U.S. District Court in Providence. (Getty photo) Two hours before Rhode Island Assistant Attorney Sarah Rice made the case to a federal court judge in Providence for an even longer and more wide sweeping block to the Trump administration's federal funding freeze, the White House budget office rescinded its memo. Confusion clouded the 30-minute virtual hearing Wednesday afternoon, where the intent behind the White House press conference and accompanying social media posts dominated discussion. While Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. didn't officially grant the temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, he made clear he was persuaded by the arguments of the 23 Democratic attorneys general who filed the lawsuit in federal court in Rhode Island Tuesday. McConnell asked the attorneys to submit proposed language covering the length of time and breadth of the proposed restraining order, giving the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney representing the federal administration 24 hours to respond before McConnell will issue a ruling. 'I agree with the states,' McConnell said. 'What I am continuing to question is how an order would look, what the scope of it would be, how it would be directed and implemented.' Daniel Schwei, the DOJ attorney representing Trump and federal agency directors named in the lawsuit, had asked McConnell to toss the complaint, arguing in a two-page filing submitted minutes before the hearing that the lawsuit was moot in light of the memo being rescinded. Rice insisted that while the document itself was no longer on the table, the intent to freeze federal funding remained, requiring immediate action to protect states who rely on the $1 trillion in federal aid for everything from wildfire fighting to transportation projects and social safety net programs like Medicaid. 'The policy, to sum it up, is freeze first, ask questions later,' Rice said. 'That is the source of our harm. We cannot proceed in regular order because we are in some ways fighting a decision that has been purposefully obscured.' The policy, to sum it up, is freeze first, ask questions later. That is the source of our harm. We cannot proceed in regular order because we are in some ways fighting a decision that has been purposefully obscured. – Rhode Island Assistant Attorney Sarah Rice Like the lawsuit filed in D.C. by a group of nonprofit, health care and business groups, the AGs' complaint leans heavily on constitutional framing, framing the Trump administration's move as a violation of the 10th Amendment, separation of powers and the 'spending clause' — which gives the federal purse strings to Congress, not the executive branch. Second federal judge seems to be prepared to block Trump spending pause A federal judge in D.C. issued a temporary administrative stay in response to that lawsuit, preventing the Trump administration from freezing federal grants and aid until at least Feb. 3. However, the AGs' complaint goes farther, names not only Trump and acting federal budget director Matt Vaeth, but also other federal cabinet members who oversee federal education, emergency, environmental and health care funding. A temporary restraining order would prevent them from enforcing any type of funding freeze, Rice told McConnell. McConnell appeared to agree, speaking to the 'irreparable harm' a freeze would impose on state governments and in turn, the millions of people who depend on their services. Even with the memo rescinded, the Trump administration is 'acting with a distinction without a difference,' he said. 'Ms. Rice has convinced me that while the piece of paper may not exist, there's sufficient evidence that the defendants collectively are acting consistent with that directive, and therefore the argument they have about needing a TRO for various legal rights exists,' McConnell said. The AGs had not filed their proposed wording for a temporary restraining order as of 6:30 p.m. Wednesday. McConnell began the virtual proceeding by welcoming the attorneys to the 'creative capital,' home to 'some of the finest restaurants and arts and culture scene known to the country.' McConnell also highlighted the written testimony of Rhode Island Department of Administration Director Jonathan Womer as particularly compelling because Rhode Island is where McConnell lives. Womer was among the slew of administrators across all 22 states who wrote in support of the temporary restraining order to keep critical state services afloat. Rhode Island has received more than $5 billion in federal funding as of Jan. 28 — equal to more than one third of the state's fiscal 2025 budget, Womer wrote in his testimony, submitted Tuesday. 'Understanding OMB 25-13 has been a difficult undertaking,' Womer wrote. 'Under one reading, it appears that all federal funding assistance with few exceptions will be paused for more than a week. Under another reading, only certain categories of funding may be paused. But it is unclear exactly which categories may be affected because OMB 25-13 does not specify categories of funds in an identifiable manner. Planning for such an about-face with less than 24-hours notice is not possible.' State agencies charged with overseeing federally funded programs were unable to access funds on Tuesday, Womer wrote, including the state Medicaid office, which confirmed after calling the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that the system was temporarily down on Tuesday. CMS did not specify when the pause would be lifted, but told Rhode Island Medicaid leaders not to expect any updates in writing, according to Womer's testimony. Other state agencies unable to access the federal payment system for essential programs included the Rhode Island Departments of Health, Labor and Training, Environmental Management and Human Services, according to Womer. I agree with the states. What I am continuing to question is how an order would look, what the scope of it would be, how it would be directed and implemented. – Chief Judge John McConnell Jr., U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island Also heavy on Rhode Island leaders' minds: the fate of the Washington Bridge rebuild, which hinges on $220 million in federal funding that was already approved under the Biden administration. Rhode Island's congressional delegation in a Jan. 25 letter to Vaeth asked for confirmation that the Washington Bridge grant, along with another $250 million in federal funds for other bridgework along Rhode Island's Interstate 95 corridor, would be released as expected. 'As of filing, there has been no response to clarify that this money would not be impacted,' the Jan. 28 lawsuit against Trump, Vaeth and other federal agency heads reads. The Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General was one of six co-leads on the lawsuit. Together, the half dozen Democratic attorneys general chose to file in Rhode Island, Tim Rondeau, a spokesperson for the Rhode Island Attorney General's office, said in an email. 'Different states will lead different efforts and lead states may choose different venues for filing: Pretty standard,' Rondeau wrote. McConnell has been a top player in Rhode Island's political and legal scene for decades. A Providence native and Brown University graduate, he was appointed as a federal judge by President Barack Obama in 2010 and confirmed in 2011. His confirmation came despite objections by U.S. Senate Republicans who criticized McConnell for his prolific donations to top Democratic political action committees and candidates — including Obama and U.S. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed — according to a 2020 investigation by CQ Roll Call. McConnell served as treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic State Committee for 14 years, starting in the 1990s, and was appointed to represent Rhode Island in the 2008 Electoral College vote, Roll Call reported. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
