Latest news with #AppealsCourt
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
US court to review Trump's power to impose tariffs
In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on July 31. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." During the July 31 arguments, Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other U.S. laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
CNN
6 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump's Tariff Arguments Met With Skepticism From Appeals Court - The Lead with Jake Tapper - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Trump's Tariff Arguments Met With Skepticism From Appeals Court The Lead with Jake Tapper 78 mins President Trump is pushing ahead with a slew of new tariffs but will his biggest deals yet come down to the 11th hour? Plus, an attorney behind the case challenging if Trump's tariffs are even legal joins to discuss. Also, an Israeli human rights organization that is saying Israel is committing genocide in Gaza joins to discuss.
USA Today
16 hours ago
- Business
- USA Today
Judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs Trump imposed on U.S. trading partners. U.S. appeals court judges sharply questioned on July 31 whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Newsom Responds to U.S. Court Blocking Ammo Background Check Law: ‘A Slap in the Face'
Newsom Responds to U.S. Court Blocking Ammo Background Check Law: 'A Slap in the Face' originally appeared on L.A. Mag. A state law meant to tackle rampant gun violence in California has been reversed following a decision made by the Appeals Court yesterday, which ruled the law a violation of the Second Newsom issued a statement following the new ruling, saying: 'Strong gun laws save lives — and [yesterday's] decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.'The former law, although passed by voters in 2016, has been in limbo for about seven years through state and federal courts. The fight to appear on the state ballot began in 2015, after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, which killed 14 people at a holiday party. Newsom headed the ballot initiative, in his then role as lieutenant governor, saying it was an answer to minimizing gun violence in California. Newsom secured the votes, mandating a background check for all ammunition purchases, similar to the background check needed to purchase a handgun. This would flag any attempted consumer with a criminal record, any prior restraining order or dangerous mental in January 2024, a district court ruled the law unconstitutional — after previous halting and reinstating — forcing the state of California to appeal. The Ninth Circuit panel struck down the law yesterday, in a 2-1 decision. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,' Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote in a statement for the two-judge majority decision, obtained by The New York background checks do receive overwhelming bipartisan support, typically ranging from 85 to 90 percent, according to the press announcement from Newsom's office. The report even cited a 2023 poll from Fox News, whom Newsom is actively suing for defamation, showing 87 percent of Americans supporting criminal background checks for anyone purchasing a firearm. The voters approved the law in 2016 with a 63 to 36 percent margin. This story was originally reported by L.A. Mag on Jul 25, 2025, where it first appeared. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A voter targeted by Judge Griffin in 2024 NC Supreme Court race testifies before Congress
Mary Kay Heling of Raleigh testifies before Congress about ending up on NC Judge Jefferson Griffin's list of people whose votes he wanted discounted despite the fact that she had supplied all required registration information and showed her license to vote. (Photo: Screenshot from video) GOP Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin's attempt to throw out more than 60,000 votes to win a Supreme Court seat landed in the national spotlight on Tuesday, this time through congressional testimony from one of the people he targeted. Mary Kay Heling, a Raleigh resident, told the Committee on House Administration that she ended up on Griffin's list last year even though she had voted without problems in primaries and general elections since 2016. The committee hearing was focused on maintaining accurate voter rolls. While Republicans said states could get away with not doing much to ensure only qualified voters were on their lists, Democrats warned that legal voters were being caught in Republican purges. Part of Griffin's challenge was based on the claim that voters failed to provide a partial Social Security number or driver's license number on their voter registration forms. Heling said she provided the last four digits of her Social Security number on the registration form and presented her driver's license at polling places when state law required voter ID. 'Never once did I doubt my vote was valid,' she said. After the November election, she received a postcard from the state GOP saying her vote might be challenged. She scanned the QR code on the postcard and spent more than an hour searching unsuccessfully for her name among thousands of others. It was later, searching a more user-friendly database, that she found she was on Griffin's list. She went to the Wake Board of Elections office to identify and correct any problem. 'It took work and persistence,'' she said. 'It was frustrating and time consuming.' Though state appellate courts ruled in favor of elements of Griffin's lawsuits, a federal judge ended Griffin's attempt to overturn Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs' victory. Griffin's election lawsuit mirrored a Republican National Committee and state GOP lawsuit that sought to have more than 225,000 voters purged from the rolls before last year's election, claiming the missing numbers meant those voters were not legally registered. The House committee also heard testimony about maintaining accurate voter lists from two conservative group representatives, J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, and Justin Riemer, president and CEO at Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. They said the National Voter Registration Act's standards for voter roll maintenance are too low. Riemer encouraged the committee to eliminate or modify the 90-day 'blackout period' found in federal law that prohibits the systematic removal of voters from the rolls 90 days before a primary or federal general election. Relying on U.S. Postal Service change of address information is insufficient, he said, because it fails to capture everyone who has moved. Federal law should require states to exchange registration information with one another, he added. 'This is wholly inadequate given the multitude of data sources available to election officials today,' he said. A nonprofit organization called ERIC was established to help states maintain voter registration files. It offers members reports on people who have moved within state, out of state, and identifies duplicate voter registrations. Conservatives, however, grew suspicious of ERIC and Republican-run states pulled out of the group. North Carolina passed a law prohibiting membership. NPR reported that the far-right website Gateway Pundit started the Republican rush to leave ERIC. Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, the committee's chairman, said voter list maintenance is crucial to election integrity. 'Inaccurate voter rolls could open the door to election fraud,' he said. 'It can hinder public confidence in our elections.' States can avoid properly maintaining their voter lists because federal standards are low, Steil said. Democrats on the committee used Heling's experience as an example of how difficult it is for voters to defend themselves when they are wrongfully targeted. Though Griffin's lawsuit failed, Democrats representing other states said registrations of legal voters had been erased in voter purges. It's voter purges that undermine confidence in elections, said U.S. Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the committee's senior Democrat. 'The Trump administration's dangerous, false rhetoric' going back to the 2020 election erodes democracy and threatens the voting rights of all Americans, he said. He called Griffin's effort to cancel Heling's vote 'part of a concerted effort to concentrate partisan power.' Proper voter list maintenance is important to secure elections, he said. 'But systematic voter purges, often illegally conducted in the run-up to federal elections, pose a real threat to voters.' The U.S. Department of Justice sued the North Carolina Board of Elections over the missing numbers in the voter database. In consultation with the DOJ, the state Board of Elections developed a plan to collect the information. Last week, elections officials vowed that no voters would be removed from the rolls. People who have not supplied the numbers will be required to vote provisionally. If they don't put the information on the provisional ballot application, their votes in state races won't count. Republicans have taken the majority on the state Board of Elections and hired Republican Sam Hayes, former general counsel to GOP House Speaker Destin Hall, to run the state elections office. North Carolina U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy (R- 3rd District), a member of the committee, said the previous election board administration failed to address the problem of missing identification numbers. 'I'm happy to say now the legislature has taken control of the Board of Elections and turned it over to Republican control,' Murphy said. 'And now, the Republicans have begun the Registration Repair Project to ensure that all eligible voters have accurate, complete information on file.' Morelle referred to the lawsuit against North Carolina as an example of Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department that is putting 200,000 people at risk of not being able to vote. The Board of Elections is keeping an updated list of people who need to supply ID numbers. As of Tuesday evening, about 101,000 people were on it.
