Latest news with #CongressionalResearchService
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
US court blocks Trump's sweeping tariffs
This story was originally published on Supply Chain Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Supply Chain Dive newsletter. A federal court on Wednesday blocked many of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff executive orders, saying the president overstepped his use of emergency powers to enact them. The United States Court of International Trade issued an injunction on four executive orders that called upon various national emergencies to enact tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, and a 10% global tariff plus additional reciprocal tariffs. The injunction called for the government to stop any operations related to those tariff orders immediately, and to issue administrative notices on the permanent injunction within 10 days. Lawyers representing the Trump administration quickly appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and have 14 days to file additional documents supporting their case. The injunction came as the result of several legal cases wherein a few small businesses and several U.S. states filed separate but similar petitions to halt the tariffs, arguing their imposition via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act overstepped presidential powers. The court eventually sided with the plaintiffs and ruled it was appropriate to block the executive orders that imposed the tariffs as a result. 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' the court panel's opinion reads. 'The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.' Trump is not the first president to have used emergency powers to impose tariffs, per an April report by the Congressional Research Service, although his authority to do so was always in question. In 1971, President Richard Nixon imposed a global 10% tariff to address a national emergency related to the country's economic position. However, Trump's use of emergency powers is different in a few ways. First, the president has used emergency powers more broadly, claiming crises on immigration, fentanyl trafficking, and disproportionate trade relationships as distinct emergencies justifying new tariffs. Second, the report notes the law Nixon used was since reformed into the IEEPA — the law used by Trump — and that, therefore, the IEEPA's use for tariffs had so far been legally untested. "IEEPA authorizes the President to 'regulate' a variety of international economic transactions, including imports. Whether 'regulate' includes the power to impose a tariff, and the scale and scope of what tariffs might be authorized under the statute, are open questions as no President has previously used IEEPA to impose tariffs," Christopher A. Casey, analyst in International Trade and Finance for the Congressional Research Service, wrote in the report. The U.S. Court of International Trade was established by the Constitution and has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of customs and trade laws in the country, according to the court's website. A federal appeals court can review its decisions. However, several Trump administration officials put out statements criticizing the courts' action to halt tariffs. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, for example, said on X: 'The judicial coup is out of control.' And, in a statement provided to several media outlets, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said: 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency." Editor's note: This is a developing story and will be updated. Recommended Reading Trump's tariffs: Tracking the status of international trade actions
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House votes to increase SALT deduction
WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reached a deal with Republican House members from blue states who pushed for an increase in the SALT deduction cap in President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill', allowing it to pass the House. The Big Beautiful Bill that passed the House on Thursday would increase the SALT deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) led the charge in the House to get the SALT cap raised. Lawler said taxpayers in his district pay some of the highest property taxes in the country and should be able to deduct those from their federal taxes. Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress capped the amount of state and local taxes (SALT) people could deduct from their federal returns. Most Republicans said the SALT cap would save the government money. The Congressional Research Service estimated eliminating the SALT deduction cap would cost $120 billion next year. 'They're saying, when you live in a big blue state, you pass less federal taxes than Texans,' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). 'When you have an unlimited deduction for state and local tax, what it does is it basically subsidizes the big, blue states.' Democrats, and blue state Republicans said a low SALT deduction cap essentially forces people to pay double taxes. 'States like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California are donor states. We regularly send billions of dollars more to the federal government than we get back,' said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the House Minority Leader. President Donald Trump said the blue states are the only ones who want the cap raised. 'This is an issue of double taxation,' Lawler said. 'It's an issue of fairness.' The Congressional Research Service said the largest percentage of people who take the SALT deduction earn more than $199,999. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court ruling on TPS stuns South Florida, leaves Venezuelan families in fear
A U.S Supreme Court ruling that allows the Trump administration to strip deportation protections and work permits from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans — including many in South Florida, home to an estimated 175,000 people from the South American country — sent shock waves throughout the greater Miami region and across the Sunshine State on Monday. 'That the U.S. would terminate the protections for Venezuelans now, when nothing has improved back home, is just unbelievable,' said Betsy Diaz, a Venezuelan-American in Hialeah whose two daughters, five grandchildren and several other relatives will lose the protections. In a two-paragraph order, the nation's highest court on Monday granted an emergency request from the White House to roll back a lower court judge's order that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for about 350,000 Venezuelans. READ MORE: Justice Jackson, who grew up in Miami, opposed allowing Trump to deport Venezuelans with TPS Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans could now be at risk being sent back to a homeland deep in the throes of political repression and economic collapse. Many TPS holders came to the U.S. to flee life-threatening dangers in Venezuela, including government persecution. The impact in Florida will be particularly acute: Of all 350,000 TPS holders living in the state, the Congressional Research Service estimates that about 225,000 are Venezuelan. 'This administration and their cruel choices disregard any basic humanity we are seeking for,' said Cecilia González Herrera, a Venezuelan TPS holder from Kissimmee and one of the individual plaintiffs in the case. 'Returning to Venezuela is not safe at all.' The Orlando area is home to an estimated 66,000 Venezuelans. For the loved ones of TPS beneficiaries, the Supreme Court decision ignites fear of family separations and the loss of livelihoods. When it moved to revoke the TPS protections in February, the Department of Homeland Security said Venezuela had seen 'notable' improvements in economy, public health and crime. But Diaz, the Hialeah grandmother, pointed to a recent State Department travel advisory that warned Americans to not travel there because of the high risk of wrongful detention, torture, terrorism and kidnapping, as well as crime, civil unrest, and the country's poor health infrastructure. 'And yet they're eliminating TPS for Venezuelans?' she asked. 'It doesn't make any sense.' Marisol Silva, 64, and her husband came to Doral in 2021 to reunite with their daughter, a journalist. She had fled Venezuela years before them because the country's government had persecuted her because of her work. She feared facing the same fate as several of her colleagues, imprisoned for reporting on the country's humanitarian crisis. Silva and her husband will keep their work permits through a pending immigration process, but she's deeply worried about losing deportation protections through TPS. Still, she holds out hope that there will be other pathways to stay. 'I still believe there will be other legal avenues for our community,' said Silva. Another group of 300,000 Venezuelans have protections under a separate 2021 designation that is set to run out in September. The Trump administration has not yet officially eliminated the protections, but will almost certainly move to do so in the coming year. Other Venezuelan community leaders in South Florida also expressed dismay following Monday's ruling. Even if the courts ultimately uphold TPS for Venezuela, it won't make much of a difference for those who are deported while litigation is pending because the high court lifted the lower court judge's order. Adelys Ferro, a Miami-based immigration activist whose organization, the Venezuelan American Caucus, is part of the lawsuit, told reporters on Monday it was a very difficult day for the Venezuelan community. 'The fight is not over. The fight does not stop. The fight is barely starting,' said Ferro. 'This is everyone's home. Especially those who cannot return to Venezuela under any concept.' José Antonio Colina, founder of VEPPEX, a nonprofit of politically persecuted Venezuelans who now live in exile, told the Miami Herald the decision is 'totally disastrous' and 'a tragedy.' He said hundreds of thousands of people would now be at risk of being sent to a country run by a government that routinely violates human rights and tortures its citizens. 'Sending those people with TPS back to Venezuela is condemning them to death,' said Colina. He also said that Venezuelans with TPS should consult immigration attorneys to explore ways they may have to stay in the U.S. legally. However, Colina said he worries about Venezuelans who felt secure in the U.S. and spoke out against the Nicolas Maduro regime. 'No one can ensure their safety,' he said. Colina and other activists said the Venezuelan government could target deportees for their social media postings under a recently approved law that establishes penalties such as up to 30 years in prison and disqualification from holding public office for those who support sanctions on the country imposed by other nations. 'Nothing good awaits them,' said Helene Villalonga, president of a Doral-based human rights group, adding that returned Venezuelans would face 'fierce persecution.' From Doral, home to the largest concentration of Venezuelans in the U.S., where more than 40% of residents are Venezuelan and a third are U.S. citizens who influence local elections, only lukewarm statements have emerged from city officials in response to the Supreme Court's decision. Rafael Pineyro, the only Venezuelan American council member in Doral, said in a statement he received the news of the Supreme Court's decision 'with a somber heart.' 'I deeply empathize with the immense stress, fear, and uncertainty this ruling brings to many in our community,' Pineyro said. 'Venezuela remains in a state of political and economic collapse. Every day, innocent people are unjustly imprisoned, tortured, and silenced for daring to stand up to a regime that continues to violate basic human rights.' Read more: A delicate balance: Why Doral GOP pols fight for Venezuelans, but avoid clash with Trump Maureen Porras, the vice mayor of Doral, said the decision would 'likely lead to more confusion' as the case continues through the courts. 'The final decision on termination is still being litigated. Venezuelans are living in limbo, enduring uncertainty and a back and forth from the different courts. I think it's important to provide stability and keep the status quo until a final decision is made,' said Porras. Doral's mayor Christi Fraga called for 'calm and reassurance.' The recent response from Doral city officials to the Supreme Court decision stands in sharp contrast to their own statements made just two months earlier. In March, the same three officials warned that ending TPS would lead to an economic collapse for the city. Read more: Venezuelans fight back against TPS termination, battling for right to stay in the U.S. Venezuelans are a significant demographic in Florida. Over 44% of all residents of Venezuelan origin in the United States live in the state — many of them in South Florida. Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the U.S., said she was 'heartbroken' for the families who followed the legal process and now face deportation to a brutal dictatorship. 'We continue to stand with those seeking protection from oppression and persecution,' Levine Cava said in a statement in X. Read more: 'It's painful.' Venezuelans torn over Trump as his deportation agenda disrupts lives Federal lawmakers from South Florida also came out in support of TPS for Venezuela on Monday. U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Trump supporter from Miami who has positioned herself as a champion for Venezuelans and others fleeing Latin American dictatorships, said in a statement she was 'deeply disappointed' with the high court's decision. She also said she would ask Trump to grant another form of deportation protection, known as Deferred Enforcement Departure, or DED. She is also requesting the protections for over half-a-million beneficiaries from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haitia of a Biden-era parole program the Trump administration has also moved to end. Trump had previously granted deferred enforcement departure to some Venezuelans during his last term. At the time, he said that the Maduro government was 'responsible for the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere in recent memory.' U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Weston, home to many Venezuelans, condemned the Supreme Court ruling. Along with Salazar and others, she has co-sponsored bipartisan legislation to restore and redesignate Venezuela's Temporary Protected Status. 'Venezuelan TPS holders fled the Maduro regime and built lives in America. They sought refuge in America from his oppression and tyranny,' said Wasserman. 'This atrocious decision allows Trump to deport non-criminals back to this murderous dictator.'
CNBC
13-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Trump tariffs face major legal hurdle as federal trade court hears challenge
A little-known federal court is set to hear arguments Tuesday in a case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs, putting a key plank of his economic agenda under the legal microscope for the first time. A panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade will consider whether Trump exceeded his power when he enacted steep tariffs on more than 180 countries and territories last month. If they side with the plaintiffs, the judges could sharply rein in Trump's ability to unilaterally impose import taxes, one of his preferred methods of flexing executive power. Audio of the arguments in the Manhattan courtroom will be livestreamed starting at 11 a.m. ET. The lawsuit was filed in mid-April by five domestic businesses that say they rely on imported goods not reasonably available to them in the U.S. Their legal complaint argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the 1977 law Trump invoked in early April to impose his worldwide "reciprocal" tariffs — does not actually give the president the power to issue those sweeping duties. The law gives the president a range of economic powers in a national emergency, including to regulate or ban imports, though it does not explicitly mention tariffs, according to the Congressional Research Service. The "national emergency" Trump declared to justify his use of that law, known as IEEPA, is "a figment of his own imagination," the plaintiffs argue. "Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency," their complaint says. The plaintiffs want the court to block Trump's April 2 executive order imposing the tariffs. They also seek damages, including "the amount of any tariffs collected by Defendants pursuant to the challenged orders." The Department of Justice argues that IEEPA "clearly" authorizes the president to impose tariffs. "Through IEEPA, Congress lawfully delegated to the President authority to regulate importation through the imposition of tariffs under specified circumstances," lawyers for the DOJ write in an opposition brief. The Liberty Justice Center, the libertarian nonprofit representing the plaintiffs, notes in the suit that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to levy and collect taxes. Congress, over the years, has enacted laws giving the president some tariff powers. But the lawsuit wants the court to declare that, "if Congress has granted the President unilateral authority to impose global tariffs of any amount at his whim, it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power." A protectionist with a special interest in cutting deals, Trump has long praised tariffs as a key tool for negotiating with other countries and collecting federal revenue. But he has at least temporarily walked back many of his tariffs amid highly volatile markets and increasing concerns from business owners and consumers. A week after announcing the reciprocal tariffs, he cut the rates down to a blanket 10% for 90 days for most countries except China. On Monday, the U.S. and China agreed to their own 90-day tariff pause while trade negotiations continue.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The 1977 law Trump is using to justify tariffs — and the court battle to stop him
A New York wine and spirits importer is heading to court on Tuesday to test President Trump's authority to levy billions in global tariffs, which could provide an early read on whether a wide-ranging legal battle over the president's trade war has a chance of halting the administration's plans. The forum for Tuesday's hearing is the US Court of International Trade, a New York-based federal court that handles trade-related lawsuits. It will evaluate whether the importer's claims justify temporarily or permanently blocking Trump's tariffs. The plaintiffs allege that the president lacked legal authority to unilaterally levy the duties. Their action is among at least seven lawsuits against the Trump administration challenging its authority to impose broad universal levies as well as more targeted measures that place taxes on items from specific countries or specific products. Other plaintiffs challenging the tariffs include a group of blue states and a Native American tribe. The authority being cited by the president and challenged by plaintiffs is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which says that during a national emergency, the president, in order to respond to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad, can regulate economic transactions, including imports. Congress passed the IEEPA to restrict presidents from overstepping a 1917 World War I-era law known as the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). The act, which regulates US transactions with enemy powers, allowed the president to exercise broad economic power during wartime and during national emergencies. However, after decades of expanded executive power claimed under the act, Congress adopted IEEPA and another law, the National Emergencies Act (NEA), to reel in executive authority. The Congressional Research Service said in a 2023 report that the law led to more than 40 years of presidentially declared national emergencies. The president cited IEEPA in an executive order issued Feb. 1 when he declared that an influx of illegal immigration and drugs into the country posed a national emergency. China, Mexico, and Canada caused the emergency, according to the order, by failing to 'arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept chemical precursor suppliers, money launderers, other TCOs, criminals at large, and drugs.' He also cited the law on April 2, so-called "Liberation Day," when he announced "reciprocal" tariffs on many countries around the world. The administration has since negotiated tariff suspensions with Canada and Mexico and paused the reciprocal duties for many countries. On Monday, President Trump announced that the US and China separately agreed to a 90-day pause on tariffs on each other's goods. The importers and their supporters argue that Congress never intended to extend monarch-like authority for US presidents to levy trade tariffs. 'The statute … does not authorize the president to unilaterally issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs,' the plaintiffs said in their lawsuit filed against the administration on April 14. The plaintiffs go on to argue that even if the president were authorized under the IEEPA to impose tariffs, the national energy stated in the president's executive order is a 'figment' of his imagination. 'Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency,' the plaintiffs said in their complaint. 'Nor do these trade deficits constitute an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.'' To evaluate the plaintiffs' claims, a three-judge panel for the US trade court is expected to examine Trump's use of the IEEPA under the 'major questions doctrine' — a rule articulated by the US Supreme Court that applies high scrutiny to executive branch actions that raise national issues of 'vast economic and political significance.' Under the rule, judges presume that when a law does not explicitly grant executive authority, Congress may not have granted it. The panel of judges presiding over the hearing include Judge Gary Katzmann, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama; Trump appointee Timothy Reif; and Judge Jane Restani, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan. The Trump administration will argue that the major questions doctrine — which was used to strike down an executive action from former President Joe Biden to issue $400 billion in student debt relief — does not apply to his decision to impose sweeping import tariffs. "It's now going to be all that stands between the Trump administration's ability to impose very high tariffs," said constitutional law professor Seth Chandler of the University of Houston Law Center. In court documents, the Trump administration argued that while the high court declined a federal agency's authority to act on an issue of vast economic and political significance, it should not apply the same reasoning to the executive's imposition of tariffs. Instead, the administration argues, the court should defer to the executive's discretion on matters of national security and foreign affairs. However, Chandler and Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said the trade court may choose to distinguish the student loan case from the tariff issue. "If I'm the challengers, I'm going to invoke this case that says you don't give the executive branch a blank check, but we're dealing with a different sort of issue here. That is, the student loan forgiveness was a purely domestic issue." Entin said there's another, less compelling argument that proposes that the tariff laws improperly delegate congressional authority to the president. Prominent Republicans joined the importers in a brief that urges the judges to find Trump's emergency-based tariffs illegal. They include state attorneys general, White House counsel, and senators, as well as law professors and former federal judges. 'Congress knows how to grant the president tariff authority when it wants to,' the supporters said in their court filing backing the plaintiffs. The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court. Entin said the Supreme Court hasn't dealt with IEEPA very much but did so in Dames & Moore v. Regan, a 1981 case that upheld the president's authority under the act to suspend legal claims against Iran to help resolve the Iran hostage crisis. In another case dealing with an act that preceded the IEEPA, Yoshida International v. United States, the US Customs Court sided with a Japanese zipper maker, ruling that neither the Tariff Act nor the Trade Expansion Act gave former President Richard Nixon authority to set a 10% tariff on foreign goods. "But the court said, 'We don't want to get into this,'" Chandler explained. "We think the president can declare an emergency, and we ought to be very deferential to that." "The question is, has [Trump] gone so far over the line here that the court should say just because you claim that there's an emergency, it doesn't mean that there is within the meaning of the statute? I don't have a good feel for what this court is likely to do," Entin said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
