Latest news with #CommerceClause
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's tariffs are bad economics, bad politics and unconstitutional
An injunction from the little-known Court of International Trade 'permanently enjoined' President Trump on Wednesday from enforcing many of his tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Neither executive authority nor congressionally delegated power allows the President to institute unprecedented global tariffs using emergency powers, the federal court unanimously ruled. On Thursday, a second federal court also blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including the so-called 'Liberation Day' ones. But just hours later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused the trade court's block. These rulings bring to forefront two constitutional debates in American history: the limits of executive authority and the right of Congress to regulate commerce. The Court of International Trade is correct to limit executive authority. Before a prostrate GOP-led Congress, the judgment reminds elected officials about the sources and legitimacy of their power: the American people and their Constitution. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 'to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Initially enacted to regulate interstate commerce, over the last 250 years the law evolved to increase federal authority over international commerce and restrict one state's ability to regulate commerce in another. Powers reserved to the states, which Republicans traditionally championed, have stood against granting Congress unchecked authority to regulate commerce. Presidents have historically claimed vast executive authority. Before Trump, several presidents employed the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to place economic sanctions on states that threatened U.S or international security. But Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act for tariffs was unprecedented. In its 49-page ruling, the trade court noted that Congress does not provide the president 'unbounded tariff power' and that the law would only be valid to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Trump invoked emergency powers on two grounds: a purported fentanyl import crisis from Canada and Mexico, and the supposed worldwide lack of reciprocity on trade. Empirical evidence on the former, especially in the case of Canada, was spurious, despite the administration's continuing dissembling about fentanyl seizures. On trade reciprocity, the administration concocted a mathematical formula equating lack of reciprocity with trade deficits that makes no sense on economic grounds, let alone the practical and profitable aspects of businesses. Congress ought to have stepped in at this point, but it lacked the spine to act. In fact, the trade court called attention to the 'improper abdication of legislative power.' The trade court heard two cases, a lawsuit led by Oregon from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and another from a group of small businesses. In the former case, states' rights are being asserted by Democratic states arguing that Trump's tariffs stood in the way of provision of services. Conservatives, including Trump, often appeal to states' rights on issues such as religion, guns, schools, abortion, marriage and civil rights. The small business case was led by a wine-making company named VOS Selections, which argued that tariffs would make the business unprofitable. Economists would agree, as did the trade court. While small businesses went to the trade court, big business has been strategically vocal about the harmful impact of tariffs. With neither the businesses nor the states supporting the president's trade policy, one must ask whom the president represents in his trade policy measures. Public polling on trade might provide an answer: die-hard MAGA supporters, who tend to be rural, under-educated and fearful of anything global or cosmopolitan. They are entitled to these fears. The question is if the president can enact trade policy on their behalf. The answer is yes only if one agrees with Trump's political calculations, not the Constitution. At the trade court, Trump's lawyers made a political argument, ostensibly on behalf of the MAGA fearful. They contended that these tariffs were necessary and that the president had the political mandate to negotiate new trade measures with countries around the world. The three-judge panel — made up of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — unanimously dismissed these political claims. Instead, the panel focused on the legal and constitutional limits on executive power. The immediate appeal to the Circuit Court provided an at least temporary victory, and the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. The White House already has a new argument that unelected judges cannot rule on these matters. Not only does this argument negate constitutional checks on executive power, but the president also continues to overestimate his electoral mandate. An emerging set of conservative champions of executive authority, citing classic sources, almost equate presidential power with the absolute or divine rights of kings. Vice President JD Vance in particular propounds such views. These 'divine right conservatives' now must confront the traditional champions of pragmatic conservatism in America: businesses, consumers, markets and the states. The courts are unlikely to uphold new conservative arguments for unchecked executive power. The Supreme Court has leaned in favor of states' rights on many questions. In the case of trade, the states' rights argument is now the bailiwick of Democratic states. Politics continues to make for strange bedfellows. In the meantime, markets rose after the court ruling Wednesday. J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs are bad economics, bad politics and unconstitutional
An injunction from the little-known Court of International Trade 'permanently enjoined' President Trump on Wednesday from enforcing many of his tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Neither executive authority nor congressionally delegated power allows the President to institute unprecedented global tariffs using emergency powers, the federal court unanimously ruled. On Thursday, a second federal court also blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including the so-called 'Liberation Day' ones. But just hours later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused the trade court's block. These rulings bring to forefront two constitutional debates in American history: the limits of executive authority and the right of Congress to regulate commerce. The Court of International Trade is correct to limit executive authority. Before a prostrate GOP-led Congress, the judgment reminds elected officials about the sources and legitimacy of their power: the American people and their Constitution. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 'to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Initially enacted to regulate interstate commerce, over the last 250 years the law evolved to increase federal authority over international commerce and restrict one state's ability to regulate commerce in another. Powers reserved to the states, which Republicans traditionally championed, have stood against granting Congress unchecked authority to regulate commerce. Presidents have historically claimed vast executive authority. Before Trump, several presidents employed the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to place economic sanctions on states that threatened U.S or international security. But Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act for tariffs was unprecedented. In its 49-page ruling, the trade court noted that Congress does not provide the president 'unbounded tariff power' and that the law would only be valid to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Trump invoked emergency powers on two grounds: a purported fentanyl import crisis from Canada and Mexico, and the supposed worldwide lack of reciprocity on trade. Empirical evidence on the former, especially in the case of Canada, was spurious, despite the administration's continuing dissembling about fentanyl seizures. On trade reciprocity, the administration concocted a mathematical formula equating lack of reciprocity with trade deficits that makes no sense on economic grounds, let alone the practical and profitable aspects of businesses. Congress ought to have stepped in at this point, but it lacked the spine to act. In fact, the trade court called attention to the 'improper abdication of legislative power.' The trade court heard two cases, a lawsuit led by Oregon from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and another from a group of small businesses. In the former case, states' rights are being asserted by Democratic states arguing that Trump's tariffs stood in the way of provision of services. Conservatives, including Trump, often appeal to states' rights on issues such as religion, guns, schools, abortion, marriage and civil rights. The small business case was led by a wine-making company named VOS Selections, which argued that tariffs would make the business unprofitable. Economists would agree, as did the trade court. While small businesses went to the trade court, big business has been strategically vocal about the harmful impact of tariffs. With neither the businesses nor the states supporting the president's trade policy, one must ask whom the president represents in his trade policy measures. Public polling on trade might provide an answer: die-hard MAGA supporters, who tend to be rural, under-educated and fearful of anything global or cosmopolitan. They are entitled to these fears. The question is if the president can enact trade policy on their behalf. The answer is yes only if one agrees with Trump's political calculations, not the Constitution. At the trade court, Trump's lawyers made a political argument, ostensibly on behalf of the MAGA fearful. They contended that these tariffs were necessary and that the president had the political mandate to negotiate new trade measures with countries around the world. The three-judge panel — made up of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — unanimously dismissed these political claims. Instead, the panel focused on the legal and constitutional limits on executive power. The immediate appeal to the Circuit Court provided an at least temporary victory, and the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. The White House already has a new argument that unelected judges cannot rule on these matters. Not only does this argument negate constitutional checks on executive power, but the president also continues to overestimate his electoral mandate. An emerging set of conservative champions of executive authority, citing classic sources, almost equate presidential power with the absolute or divine rights of kings. Vice President JD Vance in particular propounds such views. These 'divine right conservatives' now must confront the traditional champions of pragmatic conservatism in America: businesses, consumers, markets and the states. The courts are unlikely to uphold new conservative arguments for unchecked executive power. The Supreme Court has leaned in favor of states' rights on many questions. In the case of trade, the states' rights argument is now the bailiwick of Democratic states. Politics continues to make for strange bedfellows. In the meantime, markets rose after the court ruling Wednesday. J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Winston & Strawn Welcomes Michael Kimberly as Co-Chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice
WASHINGTON, May 27, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Winston & Strawn LLP announced today that Michael Kimberly has joined the firm's Washington, D.C. office as co-chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice. Michael brings a remarkable record of success, having argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and delivered more than 40 appellate arguments in courts across the country, with an overall win record of two for three. In addition to his appellate work, he frequently litigates challenges to federal administrative actions under the Administrative Procedure Act and to state laws and regulations under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. "I'm thrilled to join Winston's Washington D.C. office and to contribute to the value of its appellate and critical motions practice and litigation capabilities overall," said Michael. "Winston handles an impressive variety of high-stakes litigation cases across a range of legal areas, and I look forward to partnering with its trial teams as well as leveraging my network of clients." "We are very excited to welcome Michael as a leader in our appellate practice," said Litigation Department Co-Chairs Linda Coberly and Tom Melsheimer. "Our clients recognize the value of exceptional appellate advocates. As an accomplished Supreme Court and appellate litigator, Michael will enhance our capabilities in high-profile, mission-critical litigation for our clients across the country. And his skill set is a perfect fit for our D.C. office in particular, given his extensive experience in government-facing and constitutional litigation." Including his work in the district courts, Michael has briefed and argued more than 200 cases covering a wide range of subject matters, including environmental law, the Commerce Clause and related constitutional provisions, various sources of federal preemption, the Medicare Act and related regulations, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the First Amendment, copyright, and the Bankruptcy Code. "As demand continues to grow for appellate lawyers who can shape litigation strategy from the outset, Michael's experience aligns with our vision for the D.C. office," said David Rogers, Washington D.C. office managing partner. "His track record of success and his experience in areas central to our clients in this region, including federal regulatory challenges, taxation, ERISA, and healthcare, will be instrumental in strengthening our presence." Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with 14 offices in North America, South America, and Europe. More information about the firm is available at View source version on Contacts Michael Goodwinmgoodwin@ 646-502-3595 Sneha Satishssatish@ 646-502-3556 Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Wire
27-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Winston & Strawn Welcomes Michael Kimberly as Co-Chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Winston & Strawn LLP announced today that Michael Kimberly has joined the firm's Washington, D.C. office as co-chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice. Michael brings a remarkable record of success, having argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and delivered more than 40 appellate arguments in courts across the country, with an overall win record of two for three. In addition to his appellate work, he frequently litigates challenges to federal administrative actions under the Administrative Procedure Act and to state laws and regulations under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. 'I'm thrilled to join Winston's Washington D.C. office and to contribute to the value of its appellate and critical motions practice and litigation capabilities overall,' said Michael. 'Winston handles an impressive variety of high-stakes litigation cases across a range of legal areas, and I look forward to partnering with its trial teams as well as leveraging my network of clients.' 'We are very excited to welcome Michael as a leader in our appellate practice,' said Litigation Department Co-Chairs Linda Coberly and Tom Melsheimer. 'Our clients recognize the value of exceptional appellate advocates. As an accomplished Supreme Court and appellate litigator, Michael will enhance our capabilities in high-profile, mission-critical litigation for our clients across the country. And his skill set is a perfect fit for our D.C. office in particular, given his extensive experience in government-facing and constitutional litigation.' Including his work in the district courts, Michael has briefed and argued more than 200 cases covering a wide range of subject matters, including environmental law, the Commerce Clause and related constitutional provisions, various sources of federal preemption, the Medicare Act and related regulations, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the First Amendment, copyright, and the Bankruptcy Code. 'As demand continues to grow for appellate lawyers who can shape litigation strategy from the outset, Michael's experience aligns with our vision for the D.C. office,' said David Rogers, Washington D.C. office managing partner. 'His track record of success and his experience in areas central to our clients in this region, including federal regulatory challenges, taxation, ERISA, and healthcare, will be instrumental in strengthening our presence.' Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with 14 offices in North America, South America, and Europe. More information about the firm is available at
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.
This month marks the 20th anniversary of the seminal Granholm v. Heald case, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down protectionist alcohol shipping laws that discriminated against out-of-state wineries. Seen at the time as a harbinger of a truly national e-commerce marketplace for alcoholic beverages, Granholm continues to be treated more like a legal inconvenience than a binding precedent by lower courts. In Granholm, numerous wineries challenged a Michigan law that allowed in-state wineries to ship directly to state residents but required out-of-state wineries to sell their products through wholesalers. Because the case was a consolidation of several legal challenges, it also involved a New York law that only permitted out-of-state wineries to engage in direct-to-consumer shipping if they had a "branch factory, office or storeroom within the state of New York." In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down both laws as a violation of the so-called "dormant Commerce Clause," which establishes the principle that state governments cannot blatantly favor in-state economic interests by discriminating against out-of-state economic actors. Importantly, the law ushered in a host of state-level legislative victories that allowed wineries to ship their products directly to their customer base, thereby circumventing the notorious three-tier system of alcohol regulation. Despite nearly always being referred to as a "landmark" ruling, Granholm has been treated more on par with an obscure 19th-century SCOTUS case that has long since been reversed. In the years immediately following Granholm, the so-called Arnold's Wine line of cases—named after the Second Circuit's Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle case—came out, in which lower federal courts effectively limited the Supreme Court's Granholm decision to alcohol producers (not retailers). Other federal courts rejected such a cramped reading of the Granholm precedent, and eventually, the dispute forced the Supreme Court to weigh in again in the 2019 case Byrd v. Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association. In Tennessee Wine, the Court held—this time by a 7–2 vote—that a Tennessee law requiring liquor store owners to have been residents of the state for at least two years before applying for a license was unconstitutional. Again, the rationale was based on the fact that states were not permitted to discriminate against out-of-state economic interests unless there was a proper health and safety reason to do so. As attorney Sean O'Leary put it, the Court's majority opinion—penned by Justice Samuel Alito—"put to rest any ambiguity on the reach of Granholm." Except, somehow, it apparently didn't, because lower courts almost immediately started to ignore the Court once again. Lower courts have coalesced around what has been called the Tennessee Wine Two-Step Test: 1. Does the alcohol law at issue either facially or effectively discriminate against out-of-state economic interests? 2. If so, is the discrimination still permissible by serving a "legitimate, non-protectionist interest" (such as protecting health and safety)? Lower courts are creatively using these questions to essentially manufacture workarounds for both Granholm and Tennessee Wine. In 2022, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a North Carolina law that allowed in-state retailers to ship wine to North Carolina consumers but forbade out-of-state retailers from doing the same. Although the court agreed that the law at issue was clearly discriminatory against out-of-state economic interests, it seized upon the second prong of the two-step, holding that a state protecting its system of alcohol regulation was in and of itself "a legitimate non-protectionist ground" for the law. The 9th Circuit recently went even further. Hearing a challenge to an Arizona law that requires wine retailers to have an in-state physical presence in order to engage in interstate direct-to-consumer shipments within the state, the court ruled that the law wasn't even discriminatory. Under the court's reasoning, "setting up a physical storefront in Arizona is not a 'per se burden on out-of-state companies'" because the ability to establish such a storefront is based "on a company's resources and business model, not its citizenship or residency." The 9th Circuit's rationale is already spreading, with a district court in Washington State using the decision as a basis to now conclude that a Washington law that discriminates against out-of-state distilleries in favor of in-state distilleries is similarly permissible. Lost in all the legal slicing and dicing of these post-Granholm and post-Tennessee Wine cases is the simple reality that they're clearly ignoring the main import of these decisions. As Alito noted in Tennessee Wine, "the Commerce Clause did not permit the States to impose protectionist measures clothed as police-power regulations." Unfortunately, that appears to be exactly what states are doing—and they're being readily rubber-stamped by willing federal judges. "The decisions keep getting stranger and stranger," as O'Leary put it in an interview with Wine-Searcher. "I really thought this issue was put to rest when Alito wrote Tennessee Wine. He wrote that Granholm applies to everyone. It was a 7–2 ruling. I thought that was the end of it." States embracing protectionism and clearly thwarting previous rulings may force the Supreme Court to step in once again. The post The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway. appeared first on
