Latest news with #CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit
Yahoo
2 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
2 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.
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
US court temporarily pauses ruling that blocked Trump's tariff; White House vows Supreme Court fight
A US federal appeals court on Thursday said that President Donald Trump can keep his tariffs in place for now, using emergency powers. This ruling comes after the administration challenged the previous ruling that blocked majority of his flagship economic policies. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved an urgent request from his team, which said stopping the tariffs would be 'critical for the country's national security.' Trump is facing several lawsuits which claims that his 'Liberation Day' tariffs went beyond what the law allows. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump misused his powers by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and set tariffs on imports from almost every country. The decision is a major blow to Trump, whose unpredictable trade moves have shaken financial markets across the world. The decision by the US Court of Appeals was celebrated by the adbivisor and trade adviser Peter Navarro told reporters on Thursday, 'I can assure you, American people, that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy, and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories.' While Peter Navarro welcomed the temporary pause on the ruling, the White House remained concerned that the appeals court might still strike down Trump's tariff policy. White House officials said they planned to continue defending the legality of their efforts on trade to the US Supreme Court, and said that if they were stymied, Trump would simply pursue the same levies through other authorities. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says, " ...Other countries around the world has belief in Donald also probably see how ridiculous this ruling intend to win, we have filed an emergency appeal and we expect to fight this battle all the way in Supreme Court..." 'America cannot function if President Trump — or any other president, for that matter — has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,' she added. 'Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country.'
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
US court allows Trump tariffs to stay temporarily, cites national security; White House vows Supreme Court fight
A US federal appeals court on Thursday said that President Donald Trump can keep his tariffs in place for now, using emergency powers. This ruling comes after the administration challenged the previous ruling that blocked majority of his flagship economic policies. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved an urgent request from his team, which said stopping the tariffs would be 'critical for the country's national security.' Trump is facing several lawsuits which claims that his 'Liberation Day' tariffs went beyond what the law allows. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump misused his powers by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and set tariffs on imports from almost every country. The decision is a major blow to Trump, whose unpredictable trade moves have shaken financial markets across the world. The decision by the US Court of Appeals was celebrated by the adbivisor and trade adviser Peter Navarro told reporters on Thursday, 'I can assure you, American people, that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy, and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories.' While Peter Navarro welcomed the temporary pause on the ruling, the White House remained concerned that the appeals court might still strike down Trump's tariff policy. White House officials said they planned to continue defending the legality of their efforts on trade to the US Supreme Court, and said that if they were stymied, Trump would simply pursue the same levies through other authorities. 'America cannot function if President Trump — or any other president, for that matter — has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. 'Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country.' (With inputs from AP and Bloomberrg)
Chicago Tribune
2 days ago
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
What happens to Trump's tariffs now that a court has knocked them down?
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has audaciously claimed virtually unlimited power to bypass Congress and impose sweeping taxes on foreign products. Now a federal court has thrown a roadblock in his path. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Actto declare a national emergency and plaster taxes – tariffs – on imports from almost every country in the world. The ruling was a big setback for Trump, whose erratic trade policies have rocked financial markets, paralyzed businesses with uncertainty and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth. But Trump's trade wars are far from over. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday allowed the president to temporarily continue collecting the tariffs under the emergency powers law while he appeals the trade court's decision. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the nonprofit Liberty Justice Center who represented the five small businesses that sued, called the appeals court order a mere 'procedural step.' He expressed confidence that courts would block the tariffs, which represent 'a direct threat' to his clients' livelihoods. The administration has other ways to pursue the president's goal of using tariffs to lure factories back to America, raise money for the U.S. Treasury and pressure other countries into bending to his will. Financial markets, which would welcome an end to Trump's tariffs, had a muted response to the news Thursday; stocks rose modestly. 'Investors are not getting too carried away, presumably in the expectation that the White House will find a workaround that allows them to continue to pursue their trade agenda,'' said Matthew Ryan, head of market strategy at the financial services firm Ebury. Trump's IEEPA tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 U.S. states. The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. The legal challenge to Trump's tariff is widely expected to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. Trump on April 2 — Liberation Day, he called it — imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to negotiate trade agreements with the United States — and reduce their barriers to American exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency.' 'The reason that he chose IEEPA was he thought he could do this unilaterally without much oversight by Congress,' Schwab said. In February, he'd invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it. The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in the economic chaos that followed his decision to end a policy that linked the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEEPA. The court rejected the administration's argument this time, deciding that Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. Another federal judge also blocked Trump's use of an emergency powers law to impose tariffs on Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras came in a lawsuit from two Illinois-based educational toy companies. The ruling only blocks the collection of tariffs from the companies that sued, and was handed down the day after the trade court's broader finding. Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says Wednesday's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil.' Other countries may be reluctant to make concessions during Trump's 90-day pause if there's a chance the courts will uphold the decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs. 'Can those negotiations move forward?' said Antonio Rivera, a partner at ArentFox Schiff and a former Customs and Border Protection attorney. Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal. Still, the ruling leaves in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. Those levies were invoked under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot simply be imposed at the president's own discretion. Trump still has the authority to raise those Section 232 tariffs. He can also pursue new ones. The Commerce Department, for instance, last month launched a Section 232 investigation into the national security implications of pharmaceutical imports. The court also left in place tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term— and President Joe Biden kept — in a dispute over Beijing's use of hard-nose tactics to give Chinese companies an edge in advanced technology. The U.S. alleged that China unfairly subsidized its own firms, forced companies from the U.S. and other foreign countries to hand over trade secrets and even engaged in cybertheft. Trump has leeway to expand those tariffs if he wants to put more pressure on China. The trade court also noted Wednesday that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. When the IEEPA tariffs were in place, America's average tariff rate was 15%, the highest in decades and up from 2.5% before Trump's tariff onslaught began this year. Without them, the U.S. tariff rate is still a hefty 6.5%, according to economists Stephen Brown and Jennifer McKeown of Capital Economics. They say the U.S. economy would grow faster in the second half of 2025 — at a 2% annual rate, up from the 1.5% they'd been forecasting — without the weight of the IEEPA tariffs. Prices also wouldn't rise as fast. Importers may get relief. Posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Thursday, lawyer Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote that if the trade court's decision 'is upheld, importers should eventually be able to get a refund of (IEEPA) tariffs paid to date. But the government will probably seek to avoid paying refunds until appeals are exhausted.″
