Latest news with #AmericanGreatness
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trade court blocks President Trump's tariffs, ruling they exceed legal authority
A federal court ruled President Donald Trump can't use an emergency-powers law to impose tariffs on foreign countries, dealing a blow to his trade agenda. The three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade unanimously found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which Trump invoked to unilaterally enact duties on foreign goods, "does not authorize" the tariffs and ordered them halted. The ruling notes that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." "The question... is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act... delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," the ruling added. "The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs." The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal minutes after the ruling. Tariffs are a centerpiece of Trump's second-term economic agenda. The president has imposed steep levies on goods from foreign countries, igniting international furor and disrupting the global economy. Trump announced big reciprocal tariffs on a slew of nations last month. He later paused most of them while he negotiated trade deals. In imposing the tariffs in early April, Trump called the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports, with higher rates for countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits, particularly China. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." The trade court ruling is a setback for Trump's efforts to wield tariffs as an economic tool. It came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 13 U.S. states. The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said that the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business. Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote on social media in response to the ruling that "the judicial coup is out of control." Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the lawsuit by 13 U.S. states, called Trump's tariffs unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. "This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim," Rayfield said in a statement. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under the IEEPA, which is meant to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during a national emergency. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' The law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the United States or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. The Justice Department has said the lawsuits should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not been harmed by tariffs that they have not yet paid, and because only Congress, not private businesses, can challenge a national emergency declared by the president under IEEPA. The Court of International Trade is a specialized federal court based in New York City with nationwide jurisdiction. Its rulings can be appealed up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, eventually, to the Supreme Court. Contributing: Reuters This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trade court blocks President Donald Trump's tariffs
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs?
In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday's federal court ruling that blocked the Trump administration's tariffs on nearly all imports, the president's allies have turned to a predictable excuse for the sweeping legal defeat. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," said Kush Desai, the White House's deputy press secretary, in a statement. "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." "With activist judges, what is even the point of having a president?!" posted conservative pundit Charlie Kirk (in a tweet that inaccurately characterized just about every aspect of the legal ruling). "The judicial coup is out of control," wrote Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, on X. These reactions are as inaccurate as they are lame. In Miller's view, apparently, a "coup" occurs when judges tell the president that he has overstepped the bounds of his powers under the law—rather than when a president seizes those expansive powers. That's a very silly definition of a coup. More importantly, it's also a misleading description of what the Court of International Trade ruled on Wednesday. In this case, it was the Trump administration, not the court, that was claiming to be able to exercise unlimited, unchecked power by invoking a law. Trump had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on nearly all imports to the U.S., even though that law narrowly authorizes presidential actions only in response to "an unusual and extraordinary threat." International commerce is plainly neither of those things, as the court concluded in its ruling. "We do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President," the judges wrote. "We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers." By reviewing the actions of the executive branch to ensure they comport with the underlying law, the Court of International Trade merely fulfilled the constitutional role of the judiciary. "This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs," Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, the public-interest law firm that represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit before the Court of International Trade, told Reason in a statement. In short, that's the opposite of a coup. The claim that these were "activist judges" also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For starters, one of the three judges who issued Wednesday's unanimous ruling was appointed by Trump. Judge Timothy Reif was nominated in June 2018, during the first Trump administration. The other two judges who decided the case were appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. That seems like a pretty fair panel: A liberal, an older conservative, and a Trump appointee. All three agreed that Trump had overstepped his authority with the tariffs. Additionally, the court's ruling leaned on two bits of jurisprudence that conservatives have long championed as a way for courts to check executive authority: the "nondelegation" and "major questions" doctrines. The former says, in effect, that Congress cannot delegate its core lawmaking authority to other branches of the government. The latter says the same thing in reverse: That major questions of policy must be decided by Congress, not the other branches. The court found that Trump's tariffs failed on both counts. In the ruling, the three judges wrote that "an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government. Regardless of whether the court views the President's actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." The idea that these judges—a majority of whom were appointed by Republicans and who were exercising a pair of conservative legal theories in evaluating Trump's tariffs—were somehow unfairly biased against the president is simply laughable. There may be some questions about the basic legitimacy of the Court of International Trade, which most Americans have probably never encountered. Let's put those to rest too. The court was created by an act of Congress in 1980 to adjudicate disputes exactly like this one. Like in all federal courts, rulings from the Court of International Trade can be appealed—and the Trump administration has already indicated that it will appeal Wednesday's sweeping tariff ruling. It's also somewhat telling that the Trump administration's lawyers have been trying to move other tariff-related cases into this court. Rather than viewing the Court of International Trade as illegitimate or biased, it seems like the administration believed that the court would be the friendliest legal venue for reviewing the president's claimed tariff powers—at least until Wednesday evening. (That belief was shared by many trade policy observers, including myself, who were skeptical that the courts would be willing to intervene in such a direct way to block tariffs imposed under the IEEPA.) Whether as a legal matter or a practical one, Trump's allies are simply wrong when they claim that the administration is the victim of judicial activism in the tariff ruling. The Court of International Trade's decision to strike down the tariffs and draw clear lines around the president's emergency economic powers is well-reasoned and appropriate. It's also the sort of ruling that conservatives would be universally cheering if it were brought down against a Democratic president's power grab. This isn't a judicial coup or an unfair result. Trump exceeded the limits of the power granted to him by Congress, and the courts put a stop to it. That's exactly how our constitutional system is supposed to work. The post Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs? appeared first on
Business Insider
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Insider
Blocked tariffs and an Nvidia earnings beat are sending stocks higher today
AP Stocks gained on Thursday after a court blocked President Donald Trump's tariffs. The court is giving the Trump administration 10 days to comply with its order. Stocks also got a boost from Nvidia's first-quarter earnings beat. US stocks climbed on Thursday after a federal trade court gave said President Donald Trump didn't have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. Major indexes were higher, with the Nasdaq 100 climbing more than 1% as traders digested Nvidia's first-quarter earnings. S&P 500: 5,927.65, up 0.7% Dow Jones Industrial Average: 42,154.37, up 0.13% (+55.67 points) Nasdaq composite: 19,316.61, up 1.13% In a ruling late Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade found that Trump did not have the power to impose tariffs on many of the US's trading partners. The ruling said it would give the Trump administration 10 days to comply with its order. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness," Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, told Business Insider in an email. Investors have been antsy all year about the potential impact of tariffs, which economists have said will raise costs for businesses that can be passed along to consumers. Tariffs could also weigh on economic growth and keep interest rates elevated, as the Federal Reserve will be hesitant to lower borrowing costs to avoid stoking more upward price pressure. Analysts say that uncertainty is still hanging over the market, despite the boost in sentiment. "Yet the uncertainty premium remains very much alive. Every forthcoming court milestone carries the potential for fresh headlines," Ahmad Assiri, a research strategist at Pepperstone, wrote in a note on Thursday, pointing to anxieties over the growing US budget deficit. "This after-hours rally reflected a swift change in sentiment as traders welcomed the prospect of reduced trade headwinds," David Morrison, a senior market analyst at Trade Nation, wrote in a note. "But investors should take care. Markets are extremely skittish at present and capable of big moves in both directions, as demonstrated by the overnight rally. This is not the slow and steady bull market that took off in October 2022." Trump has incrementally scaled back the majority of his proposed tariffs, a move that the market has coined as the " TACO trade" in recent days. Many of the tariffs he announced on April 2 have been reduced to 10% for a 90-day period as trade negotiations take place. Tariffs on China have also been reduced to 30% on a separate 90-day timeline. A 50% tariff on the EU has been pushed out to July 9, which is when the pause on most of the Liberation Day tariffs expire. Tech stocks were also on a tear on Thursday as traders took in Nvidia's latest quarterly earnings report. The chipmaker reported $44.06 billion in revenue, beating estimates. CEO Jensen Huang also soothed investors about the impact of restrictions on its business in China. Nvidia shares rose about 6% to trade at $143.31. Other chipmakers also moved higher, with Advanced Micro Devices up 2% Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company up 1%.
USA Today
2 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Trade court blocks President Trump's tariffs, ruling they exceed legal authority
Trade court blocks President Trump's tariffs, ruling they exceed legal authority The ruling from the United States Court of International Trade found Trump can't use a 1977 law to impose tariffs. Show Caption Hide Caption Court blocks Trump's tariffs, saying they exceed legal authority A trade court blocked President Donald Trump's tariffs, saying they exceed his legal authority. A federal court ruled President Donald Trump can't use an emergency-powers law to impose tariffs on foreign countries, dealing a blow to his trade agenda. The three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade unanimously found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which Trump invoked to unilaterally enact duties on foreign goods, "does not authorize" the tariffs and ordered them halted. The ruling notes that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." "The question... is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act... delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," the ruling added. "The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs." The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal minutes after the ruling. Tariffs are a centerpiece of Trump's second-term economic agenda. The president has imposed steep levies on goods from foreign countries, igniting international furor and disrupting the global economy. Trump announced big reciprocal tariffs on a slew of nations last month. He later paused most of them while he negotiated trade deals. In imposing the tariffs in early April, Trump called the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports, with higher rates for countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits, particularly China. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." The trade court ruling is a setback for Trump's efforts to wield tariffs as an economic tool. It came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 13 U.S. states. The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said that the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business. Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote on social media in response to the ruling that "the judicial coup is out of control." Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the lawsuit by 13 U.S. states, called Trump's tariffs unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. "This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim," Rayfield said in a statement. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under the IEEPA, which is meant to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during a national emergency. Trump defends tariff efforts when asked about 'TACO trade' President Trump was asked about the acronym 'TACO,' which stands for "Trump always chickens out' - a jab coined by financial analysts. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' The law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the United States or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. The Justice Department has said the lawsuits should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not been harmed by tariffs that they have not yet paid, and because only Congress, not private businesses, can challenge a national emergency declared by the president under IEEPA. The Court of International Trade is a specialized federal court based in New York City with nationwide jurisdiction. Its rulings can be appealed up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, eventually, to the Supreme Court. Contributing: Reuters
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump's signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping. The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country's trade policy dependent on his whims. Trump has repeatedly said the tariffs would force manufacturers to bring back factory jobs to the U.S. and generate enough revenue to reduce federal budget deficits. He used the tariffs as a negotiating cudgel in hopes of forcing other nations to negotiate agreements that favored the U.S., suggesting he would simply set the rates himself if the terms were unsatisfactory. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said that trade deficits amount to a national emergency 'that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.' The administration, he said, remains 'committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.' But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim. Trump might still be able to temporarily launch import taxes of 15% for 150 days on nations with which the U.S. runs a substantial trade deficit. The ruling notes that a president has this authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump's signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The administration swiftly filed notice of appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow. The case was heard by three judges: Timothy Reif, who was appointed by Trump, Jane Restani, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and Gary Katzman, an appointee of President Barack Obama. 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The ruling left in place any tariffs that Trump put in place using his Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He put a 25% tax on most imported autos and parts, as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminum. Those tariffs depend on a Commerce Department investigation that reveals national security risks from imported products. It was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that deals specifically with civil lawsuits involving international trade law. While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency. He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years. Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America's massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border. His administration argues that courts approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and that only Congress, and not the courts, can determine the 'political' question of whether the president's rationale for declaring an emergency complies with the law. Trump's Liberation Day tariffs shook global financial markets and led many economists to downgrade the outlook for U.S. economic growth. So far, though, the tariffs appear to have had little impact on the world's largest economy. The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive. A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. 'This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim,' Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the tariffs had "jacked up prices on groceries and cars, threatened shortages of essential goods and wrecked supply chains for American businesses large and small.″ ___ Associated Press writers Zeke Miller and Paul Wiseman contributed to this story.
