Latest news with #AndrewMorris
CNN
29-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
Trump tariffs decision rests on arguments conservatives repeatedly used against Biden
The blockbuster federal court ruling that halts President Donald Trump from imposing some of his most sweeping tariffs rests in part on a legal theory that conservative groups repeatedly used at the Supreme Court to block former President Joe Biden's agenda. A push by the majority-conservative Supreme Court to use what's known as the 'major questions doctrine' to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval may play a role when the case inevitably works its way up to the high court. The Trump administration is already pledging to bring an emergency appeal to the justices in coming days. The US Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump from relying on a 1977 law dealing with economic emergencies to impose sweeping duties on much of the world. It did so in part by noting separation-of-powers theories the Supreme Court has used to shut down some of Biden's policies, such as his efforts to forgive student loans, curb power plant emissions and extend a moratorium on evictions at the tail end of the pandemic. 'There's a broader movement in this direction,' said Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian-leaning law group that is active at the Supreme Court and that sued Trump over the tariffs in a separate case. 'The general trend is that the court is looking closely at whether Congress has delegated certain power to the executive branch – agencies and presidents,' Morris said. 'That trend weighs against the president in this case.' In 2023, the Supreme Court relied on what's known as the major questions doctrine to block Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. That doctrine requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when it intends to authorize a president to take actions of 'economic or political significance.' In other words, if Congress doesn't explicitly include language in a law giving the president power to act in some way, that action may be legally suspect. The Supreme Court in 2022 curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, a major defeat for Biden that also relied heavily on the major questions doctrine. In both cases, the policies were challenged by Republican attorneys general in conservative states. The trade court's opinion also flicked at what's known as the 'nondelegation doctrine,' or the idea that Congress can't delegate its power to federal agencies. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case it will likely decide in June that touches on that same doctrine. That appeal involves the multibillion-dollar Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to offset the cost of phone and internet service for low-income Americans. A conservative 'consumer awareness group' is challenging that fund, arguing it amounts to a tax levied by the Federal Communications Commission. It is Congress that holds the power to tax, not the executive branch. The federal trade court nodded to both theories in its opinion Wednesday as 'tools' that could be used to resolve the case. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,' the court wrote. '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 the law 'that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' Trump's lawyers urged an appeals court to pause the trade court ruling and threatened to take the matter to the Supreme Court. The administration said the ruling 'threatens to unwind months of foreign-policy decision-making and sensitive diplomatic negotiations, at the expense of the nation's economic well-being and national security.' During Trump's first administration, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals over Trump's 25% tariffs on foreign steel. But those tariffs were levied under a different legal authority.
Sky News
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
'Short-sighted' to exclude inmates on indefinite sentences from early release scheme, say campaigners
Why you can trust Sky News Campaigners have hit out at the "short-sighted" decision not to include prisoners on indefinite sentences in the plans to reduce the prison population. On Thursday, the government published its long-awaited sentencing review, led by former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke, who recommended that some offenders who behave well in jail only serve a third of their term in custody before being released. Not included in the scheme are prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) - a type of open-ended jail term that was abolished more than a decade ago and which critics have denounced as inhumane. Andrew Morris was given an IPP sentence in 2007 for false imprisonment and threats to kill, for which he was given a tariff - the minimum amount he must serve in jail before being considered for release - of two years. Owing to the indefinite nature of the sentence, he was released 12 and a half years later. He told Sky News that many offenders on IPP are still languishing in jail despite serving years over their minimum term. 12:16 He said he found it "mind boggling" that IPP prisoners were not included in the Gauke review and in the early release scheme, which the government has admitted could result in sex offenders and domestic abusers serving sentences of under four years being eligible for early release. "I think it's incredibly short-sighted and it's really frustrating that everybody is talking about the need to free up space in prisons and there is an answer that is glaringly obvious to everybody - but for reasons no one is clear about, no one wants to take that option," he said. "Even if you take out the most serious offenders on IPP who potentially have mental health issues that make them unsafe to be released, there is still the potential for thousands of places to be freed up." What are IPP sentences? IPP sentences were a type of sentence the courts could impose from 2005 until they were abolished in 2012. They were intended for serious violent and sexual offenders who posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public but whose crimes did not warrant a life term. 3:21 Although the government's stated aim was public protection, concerns quickly grew that IPP sentences were being applied too broadly and catching more minor offenders, who often ended up serving years beyond their initial term. Anyone jailed on an IPP can only be released once they have served their minimum term or tariff and after the parole board is satisfied they no longer pose a risk to the public. Those who are released are done so on licence, where they are subject to strict conditions. If they breach those conditions, they can be recalled to prison at any time - even if they did not commit a further offence. The coalition government scrapped the sentence in 2012, but the change was not applied retrospectively, leaving around 2,544 prisoners behind bars. Of those, 1,012 have never been released. Successive governments have rejected calls from MPs and the House of Lords for IPP prisoners to be resentenced, arguing that such a process would risk releasing offenders who still pose a threat to the public. Instead, the focus of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) under the Conservatives and now Labour has been to reduce the IPP prison population through providing access to rehabilitative courses and programmes. However, families have long complained about the availability and access to such courses. 'Inhumane and unjust' Campaigners argue that IPP prisoners - who are reportedly more than two-and-a-half times more likely to self-harm than the general prison population - continue to be penalised by a sentence that was abolished more than a decade ago. Ungripp, the United Group for Reform of IPP, said it was "extremely disappointed that yet again people on IPP sentences are being further penalised by the government by excluding them from the current changes to recall. "It's inhumane and unjust, morally wrong and a waste of taxpayers' money. "The government could help fix the prison crisis by fixing the IPP altogether or at the very least, release those 1,075 people who've been recalled but committed no further crime, which would empty one of the largest prisons entirely." The government was moved to carry out a review of sentencing amid an overcrowding crisis in prisons in England and Wales - where the male prison population is at 99% capacity and set to run out of room in November. It is understood that the IPP sentence was not included in the review because it is no longer used. The review has made a series of recommendations with the aim of reducing the prison population by 9,800 people by 2028, including chemical castration for the worst sex offenders to reduce reoffending. An MoJ spokesperson said: "It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. IPP prisoners are considered for release by the independent parole board every two years and those who are deemed safe will be released. "The government is supporting IPP prisoners achieve their release but this must be done in a way that does not put the public at risk."
Axios
16-04-2025
- Business
- Axios
Trump tariffs face Main Street lawsuit
U.S. courts have the potential to be the biggest threat yet to the central tenet of President Trump's economic agenda. Why it matters: Legal groups representing Main Street businesses want judges to block some tariffs as lawsuits against the levies make their way through the judicial system. State of play: Bigger names in corporate America have been reluctant to take Trump on in court. A trade group representing major retailers has pulled back on a potential tariff lawsuit, Bloomberg reported this month. Its members were hesitant to proceed. Small businesses, however, are involved in multiple lawsuits seeking to block Trump's tariffs. The legal groups that represent them admit it is impossible to know how — and how quickly — courts might respond. The latest lawsuit, filed by Liberty Justice Center on Monday on behalf of five small businesses, alleges Trump does not have the power to impose across-the-board worldwide tariffs without congressional approval. Between the lines: The White House relied on untested emergency powers to impose tariffs, a move that at least three lawsuits now argue is executive overreach. Trump invoked authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president wide-ranging powers in an emergency. Trump signed executive orders that said that illegal drugs, undocumented immigration and "large and persistent" trade deficits constituted national emergencies. Yes, but: IEEPA has never been used to implement tariffs since its creation in 1977. "Even if you declare an emergency, it doesn't let you tax the American people. It doesn't let you impose a tariff," says Andrew Morris of New Civil Liberties Alliance, which filed a lawsuit against the China tariffs on April 3 in a Florida district court on behalf of a local retailer. The other side: White House spokesman Harrison Fields told Reuters, "Never Trumpers will always oppose him, but President Trump is standing up for Main Street by putting an end to our trading partners — especially China — exploiting the U.S." While the use of the emergency law to impose tariffs is unprecedented, courts have previously granted presidents other wide authorities under IEEPA. What to watch: Liberty Justice Center tells Axios it is preparing to file for a preliminary tariff relief that, if granted, could result in suspended across-the-board tariffs The risk is if a small business goes under before a judge rules on the tariffs that threaten the business. "In six months or a year from now, these businesses could look really different and monetary damages aren't going to be able to make that up," says Jeffrey Schwab, the lead attorney on the case.
