Latest news with #ArticleIII
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Court blocks Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, calls them unconstitutional
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs, curbing executive authority over international trade. The New York-based Article III federal court, composed of nine presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed judges, unanimously ruled the tariffs unconstitutional. The decision, now under appeal and likely headed to the Supreme Court for final decision, reinforces the CIT's critical role in enforcing statutory and constitutional limits on trade policy. Tariff dispute overview A three-judge CIT panel invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including a 30% levy on Chinese goods, 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% universal tariff on global goods—the broadest use of presidential trade authority in modern history. The Trump administration justified these measures by declaring U.S. trade deficits a 'national emergency' threatening economic challenge The ruling stemmed from lawsuits filed by small businesses—V.O.S. Selections, Inc., Plastic Services and Products, LLC (Genova Pipe), MicroKits, LLC, FishUSA Inc., and Terry Precision Cycling LLC—and twelve Democratic-led states: Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. Plaintiffs argued that Trump exceeded his IEEPA authority, asserting that Article I of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to regulate commerce and impose ruling The panel, with judges appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump, ruled that 'IEEPA does not confer unbounded authority' to impose tariffs. The court held that trade deficits do not qualify as an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' under IEEPA and that commerce regulation is Congress's domain. Bypassing preliminary injunction requests, the CIT issued a permanent injunction, vacating the 'Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking' tariff orders and halting enforcement. Reactions and impact The White House sharply criticized the ruling. Spokesperson Kush Desai stated, 'Unelected judges should not dictate responses to a national emergency. President Trump remains committed to restoring American greatness through executive power.' Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called it a 'judicial coup' on social media. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, leading the states' lawsuit, hailed the decision, saying, 'The Constitution doesn't grant any president unchecked economic authority.' New York Attorney General Letitia James warned the tariffs would have triggered 'inflation, business losses, and job cuts.' The ruling disrupts U.S. ports, where tariffed goods arrive daily, creating uncertainty for businesses and officials navigating active tariffs. Appeal and outlookThe Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with experts predicting Supreme Court review due to the case's implications for presidential power. The decision does not affect tariffs under other authorities, like Section 232 on steel and aluminum, complicating trade dynamics. Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome noted that the ruling weakens U.S. leverage in trade talks, as foreign governments face less pressure from invalidated tariffs. The CIT's decision reaffirms Congress's constitutional authority over trade, checking executive overreach. As the case advances, it will shape the boundaries of presidential power, influencing U.S. economic policy and global trade relations amid ongoing tensions. The post Court blocks Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, calls them unconstitutional appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal judge: NM suit against Musk & DOGE can proceed
On Feb. 13, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez (below) joined Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Arizona AG Kris Mayes to discuss a new multi-state lawsuit filed by 14 states against Elon Musk, DOGE and President Trump. A federal judge denied the requested temporary restraining order on Feb. 18. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office announced on Tuesday that District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, from the District of Columbia, had denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss a lawsuit by more than a dozen states, and co-led by New Mexico, against Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleges President Trump 'delegated virtually unchecked authority to [Musk] without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities.' A federal judge that same month rejected the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order against DOGE and President Donald Trump. New Mexico sues Elon Musk In her ruling, Chutkan writes that two states, New Mexico and Washington, 'allege sufficient injuries' to satisfy standing under Article III of the Constitution, which limits federal judicial power. In the case of New Mexico, Chutkan notes that New Mexico's Mining and Minerals Division has been unable to access federal funding via Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants, which it relies on to 'safeguard…thousands of abandoned mines and associated hazards' across the state. She wrote that the court also found 'New Mexico's allegations that Defendants gained unauthorized access to its private and proprietary information sufficient to allege an injury.' In describing the suit in February, Torrez said it posed a 'novel' question for the courts to consider, which is that Musk's actions constitute 'a fundamental restructuring of constitutional order and a violation of the rule of law.' Specifically, the suit argues that DOGE's actions violate the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and the Appointments Clause, specifically the portion that requires executive appointments to have congressional oversight. In her analysis, Chutkan notes that the U.S. Constitution does not allow 'the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency pursuant to Executive Order and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an 'advisor' in name only. This is precisely what Plaintiffs claim the Executive has done.' While Chutkan allowed the suit to proceed, she did agree to dismiss President Trump as a defendant. Following Chutkan's ruling on Tuesday, Torrez released a statement calling the decision 'an important milestone for preserving America's system of checks and balances.' The AGs filed the case, he said, 'to defend the Constitution and stop the dangerous precedent of allowing billionaire donors to dismantle federal agencies, cut vital public programs, and access sensitive state data without lawful authority. We are proud to move this case forward and help bring Elon Musk's reign of terror to an end.' Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement noted that, 'The Constitution, and the Appointments Clause, are not mere roadblocks for this administration to ignore. I look forward to continuing this case in court.' Torrez noted that the case will continue even if Musk is gone. 'No one should be allowed to outsource the presidency to one of their billionaire friends or exercise executive authority without the advice and consent of the Senate,' he said in a statement. 'This is about the rule of law, plain and simple.'
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Kristi Noem called ‘dangerously dumb' after Senate ‘habeas corpus' blunder; What she said about it
In a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sparked controversy after mischaracterising the constitutional principle of habeas corpus . Her comments prompted an immediate correction from Senator Maggie Hassan and ignited a flurry of online criticism. When asked by Senator Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire , to define habeas corpus, Noem responded, 'Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, to suspend their right to...' before being cut off. Senator Hassan firmly replied, 'Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens , and hold them indefinitely for no reason. It is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.' Noem then rephrased her answer, stating, 'I support habeas corpus.' But she added, 'I also recognise that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.' This exchange came amid rising concerns that the Trump administration may attempt to suspend the centuries-old legal safeguard as part of its aggressive immigration enforcement strategy. Live Events Suspension talk: Trump aide fuels debate The discussion follows earlier remarks by Stephen Miller , White House deputy chief of staff, who on 9 May told reporters the administration was 'actively looking at' suspending habeas corpus. He said, 'The Constitution is clear… the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended in time of invasion… So that's an option we're actively looking at.' Miller further suggested that courts might not even have jurisdiction, stating, 'Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts… of jurisdiction over immigration cases.' The Trump administration has argued that the U.S. is facing an 'invasion' of illegal migrants, invoking language typically associated with war or national emergency. The aim is to expedite deportations without lengthy legal proceedings. However, this framing has been widely challenged in courts and the press. What is 'Habeas corpus'? Habeas corpus—Latin for 'you have the body'—is a legal doctrine that dates back to English common law and was codified in the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the government must justify detaining any person before a neutral judge. The Constitution only allows its suspension 'when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.' Historically, suspension has occurred just four times. President Abraham Lincoln first suspended it during the Civil War to detain Confederate sympathisers, a move initially rebuked by the Supreme Court's then-Chief Justice Roger Taney. Congress later granted Lincoln retroactive approval. It was suspended again under President Ulysses S. Grant to combat Ku Klux Klan violence, in the Philippines in 1905, and in Hawaii after the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941. Legal scholars, including now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett, have noted that although the Constitution does not specify which branch may suspend habeas corpus, most agree that only Congress holds that power. Following the gaffe, Kristi Noem has come under intense scrutiny on social media after a video of her misdefining the legal principle of habeas corpus during a Senate hearing went viral. The moment was posted on X (formerly Twitter) by political commentator Brian Krassenstein. 'We are living in the dumbest of times,' Krassenstein wrote, summing up what many users echoed in the comments. — krassenstein (@krassenstein) The backlash was swift and biting. One user responded, 'I was laughing so hard! That's why she plays dress-up, because she can't do anything else.' Another added, 'Dangerously dumb.' Comments ranged from blunt jabs—'She's as dumb as a bag of rocks'—to more pointed speculation: 'She's playing dumb. Has to be.' Another said plainly, 'The head of the department is freaking CLUELESS! My God!' The social media storm erupted after Noem told Senator Maggie Hassan during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing that habeas corpus was 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Hassan, a Democrat and former attorney, immediately corrected her: 'Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.' Judiciary pushback likely John Blume, professor at Cornell Law School, said Noem's remarks reflect either 'a fundamental misunderstanding' or deliberate misinformation. 'She was giving an answer she knew was wrong to appease the president,' he told reporters. Blume also cast doubt on the administration's ability to suspend habeas corpus, even under claims of invasion. 'That position would be very unlikely to fly with the U.S. Supreme Court,' he added. This is not the administration's first brush with sweeping legal authority. Trump previously cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants alleged to be gang members. Federal courts across states including New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania blocked the move, citing insufficient evidence of a true national threat. Unlike previous administrations, even during times of crisis, President Trump's team appears more willing to stretch executive power. After the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush chose not to suspend habeas corpus but instead detained terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court later ruled in 2008 that detainees had the right to challenge their detention under habeas corpus. Senator Hassan pressed Noem further on whether she would follow a hypothetical court ruling overturning a presidential suspension of habeas corpus. Noem responded, 'I'm following all court orders… as is the president.' To which Hassan responded bluntly, 'That is obviously not true for anybody who reads the news.' A divided government, a divided opinion Any attempt to suspend habeas corpus now would face steep hurdles. With only narrow Republican majorities in Congress, gaining legislative support would be difficult. Courts, too, remain a bulwark against executive overreach, as seen in repeated rulings that have blocked Trump-era immigration measures. Still, the administration's interest in circumventing traditional legal pathways to speed up deportations signals a concerning shift. At its core, the clash over habeas corpus is more than a political spat—it's a test of the balance between national security and civil liberties. And for many, the answer should never be ambiguous.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's birthright order gets frosty reception, but justices appear ready to limit nationwide blocks
President Donald Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction at the Supreme Court Thursday, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives. Three district judges have deployed that tool — known as a nationwide injunction — to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional. At the same time, the conservative justices seemed intent on devising a way to prevent, or at least limit, district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against federal policies. Instead, those justices said, judges should focus on granting remedies that apply to the particular individuals or groups who sued, or to a clearly defined class of similarly situated people. 'Let's put out of our minds the merits of this, and just look at the abstract question of universal injunctions,' Justice Samuel Alito said. 'The practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges … and all Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that 'I am right and I can do whatever I want.'' Several justices suggested that, when a broad judicial remedy is needed, the proper course is for the case to be handled as a class-action lawsuit, rather than through a blanket injunction that applies everywhere in the country. To bring a case as a class action, challengers often must surmount special procedural obstacles and, typically, there is no relief until the suit is concluded. The court's liberal justices highlighted what they said were practical problems to limiting nationwide injunctions. Without them, the executive branch might be able to enforce a policy that one court has declared illegal against some people — or in some jurisdictions — but not others. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made that point to Solicitor General John Sauer, who defended Trump's birthright citizenship order and urged the court to eliminate nationwide injunctions. 'Your argument seems to turn our justice system — in my view at least — into a 'catch me if you can' kind of regime, from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights,' Jackson said. 'I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.'
Politico
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Trump's birthright order gets frosty reception, but justices appear ready to limit nationwide blocks
President Donald Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction at the Supreme Court Thursday, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives. Three district judges have deployed that tool — known as a nationwide injunction — to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional. At the same time, the conservative justices seemed intent on devising a way to prevent, or at least limit, district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against federal policies. Instead, those justices said, judges should focus on granting remedies that apply to the particular individuals or groups who sued, or to a clearly defined class of similarly situated people. 'Let's put out of our minds the merits of this, and just look at the abstract question of universal injunctions,' Justice Samuel Alito said. 'The practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges … and all Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that 'I am right and I can do whatever I want.'' Several justices suggested that, when a broad judicial remedy is needed, the proper course is for the case to be handled as a class-action lawsuit, rather than through a blanket injunction that applies everywhere in the country. To bring a case as a class action, challengers often must surmount special procedural obstacles and, typically, there is no relief until the suit is concluded. The court's liberal justices highlighted what they said were practical problems to limiting nationwide injunctions. Without them, the executive branch might be able to enforce a policy that one court has declared illegal against some people — or in some jurisdictions — but not others. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made that point to Solicitor General John Sauer, who defended Trump's birthright citizenship order and urged the court to eliminate nationwide injunctions. 'Your argument seems to turn our justice system — in my view at least — into a 'catch me if you can' kind of regime, from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights,' Jackson said. 'I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.'
