Latest news with #D.C.Circuit
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Courts can't put politics — or illegal immigrants — above the law
After 100 days of Trump 2.0, America's southern border is officially secure. Illegal border crossings are at their lowest levels in decades. But President Trump's push for border security, among other policies, has hit superfluous judicial roadblocks every step of the way. After the Trump administration refused to return two airplanes deporting illegal immigrants to El Salvador last month, the U.S. District Court for D.C. found probable cause to hold Trump in contempt, claiming the administration demonstrated a 'willful disregard' for an emergency order to turn those flights around. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily stayed contempt proceedings against Trump while it reviews a flood of pleadings on the subject (including ours), but the threat of contempt is still very much alive. The courts are in a perilous dash to stop Trump's immigration policy based on old and proven laws. In the courts' rush to judgment (pun intended), the often one-sided, policy-driven rulings are giving the judicial branch the worst possible taint — as an enemy of electoral democracy. The attempt to prosecute contempt is a bridge way too far. While the district court had much to say at the hearing, castigating government lawyers, its written order didn't match the tempo. This is yet another symptom of the anti-Trump fervor within the judiciary, but precisely why contempt cannot be found. First, the district court's actual, written temporary restraining order, which binds the relevant parties — not the sentiments expressed in court beforehand — only purported to stop the Trump administration from deporting the illegal immigrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (the deportees allegedly belong to the designated foreign terrorist group Tren de Aragua). However, the order did not go further by directing the federal government to return the illegal aliens, who had already been removed from U.S. territory and airspace. The letter of the law means just that: Written words and express language. On the plain face of the order's limited scope, the Trump administration did not violate it. More concerning, however, is that the district court rushed to rule and to hold in contempt. Courts aren't the place to hammer out public policy positions; that's why we have elections. When courts try to block or create policy, telling the people what they should or shouldn't believe, they lose their legitimacy. Respected courts stay within the narrow confines of their role, rejecting the impulse to engage in partisan politics. Trump won the presidency by promising not just to stop, but to reverse the mass flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S., because excessive immigration is overloading infrastructure and lowering the living standard of many communities. Trump openly campaigned on mass deportation, which was embraced by even communities that normally wouldn't be expected to vote for Trump. The district court cannot hold Trump in contempt for exercising lawful duties, and it is lawful for him to use the Alien Enemies Act as justification for the deportation of alleged terrorists. Similarly, executive branch personnel cannot reasonably be held in contempt for honoring lawful and popular orders passed down from their president. There may come another time for increased immigration again, but now is not it, and the courts should wait for elected officials to promote such policies. Far too often, America's courts have been used as political weapons to attack Republicans like Trump and shield Democratic administrations from scrutiny over their flagrant violations of immigration law. Whereas courts often demand that Republican administrations participate in highly fact-intensive individual analyses of each deported criminal or terrorist welcomed by the Biden administration (or the Obama administration before it), the same standard is not applied to Democrats, whose open-border policies were aggressively shielded from judicial review. Where was the judicial scrutiny of Democrats who opened our borders — with endless taxpayer-funded largesse — to millions of illegal immigrants? For the left, the goal of an open border is clear: Political power. As Elon Musk rightly pointed out last year, illegal immigrants count toward congressional apportionment, and we have already seen blue states like California and New York gain seats as a result of illegal migrant flows. Democrats are all for exploiting an open border and passive courts to achieve permanent majorities, even if illegal immigration threatens American citizens' lives through criminal or terrorist activity. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Illegal immigrant gang-bangers and terrorists can't weaponize the constitutional rights of citizenship they don't have to commit crimes while securing taxpayer-funded benefits, driving up food and housing prices while also driving down wages. President Trump was elected by substantial popular and Electoral College majorities to secure our borders, and he has already succeeded. The border is closed because American citizens are sick and tired of criminals and terrorists running amok and destroying our society. These deportees have no right to be in our country. Surely, the U.S. judicial system will ultimately act appropriately and not stymy the will of the people — embodied by a president who is acting within the scope of his executive authority. There are countless jurists who still act in good faith, and that begins by keeping their politics out of the law. Shaun McCutcheon is the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC and chairman of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Courts can't put politics — or illegal immigrants — above the law
After 100 days of Trump 2.0, America's southern border is officially secure. Illegal border crossings are at their lowest levels in decades. But President Trump's push for border security, among other policies, has hit superfluous judicial roadblocks every step of the way. After the Trump administration refused to return two airplanes deporting illegal immigrants to El Salvador last month, the U.S. District Court for D.C. found probable cause to hold Trump in contempt, claiming the administration demonstrated a 'willful disregard' for an emergency order to turn those flights around. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily stayed contempt proceedings against Trump while it reviews a flood of pleadings on the subject (including ours), but the threat of contempt is still very much alive. The courts are in a perilous dash to stop Trump's immigration policy based on old and proven laws. In the courts' rush to judgment (pun intended), the often one-sided, policy-driven rulings are giving the judicial branch the worst possible taint — as an enemy of electoral democracy. The attempt to prosecute contempt is a bridge way too far. While the district court had much to say at the hearing, castigating government lawyers, its written order didn't match the tempo. This is yet another symptom of the anti-Trump fervor within the judiciary, but precisely why contempt cannot be found. First, the district court's actual, written temporary restraining order, which binds the relevant parties — not the sentiments expressed in court beforehand — only purported to stop the Trump administration from deporting the illegal immigrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (the deportees allegedly belong to the designated foreign terrorist group Tren de Aragua). However, the order did not go further by directing the federal government to return the illegal aliens, who had already been removed from U.S. territory and airspace. The letter of the law means just that: Written words and express language. On the plain face of the order's limited scope, the Trump administration did not violate it. More concerning, however, is that the district court rushed to rule and to hold in contempt. Courts aren't the place to hammer out public policy positions; that's why we have elections. When courts try to block or create policy, telling the people what they should or shouldn't believe, they lose their legitimacy. Respected courts stay within the narrow confines of their role, rejecting the impulse to engage in partisan politics. Trump won the presidency by promising not just to stop, but to reverse the mass flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S., because excessive immigration is overloading infrastructure and lowering the living standard of many communities. Trump openly campaigned on mass deportation, which was embraced by even communities that normally wouldn't be expected to vote for Trump. The district court cannot hold Trump in contempt for exercising lawful duties, and it is lawful for him to use the Alien Enemies Act as justification for the deportation of alleged terrorists. Similarly, executive branch personnel cannot reasonably be held in contempt for honoring lawful and popular orders passed down from their president. There may come another time for increased immigration again, but now is not it, and the courts should wait for elected officials to promote such policies. Far too often, America's courts have been used as political weapons to attack Republicans like Trump and shield Democratic administrations from scrutiny over their flagrant violations of immigration law. Whereas courts often demand that Republican administrations participate in highly fact-intensive individual analyses of each deported criminal or terrorist welcomed by the Biden administration (or the Obama administration before it), the same standard is not applied to Democrats, whose open-border policies were aggressively shielded from judicial review. Where was the judicial scrutiny of Democrats who opened our borders — with endless taxpayer-funded largesse — to millions of illegal immigrants? For the left, the goal of an open border is clear: Political power. As Elon Musk rightly pointed out last year, illegal immigrants count toward congressional apportionment, and we have already seen blue states like California and New York gain seats as a result of illegal migrant flows. Democrats are all for exploiting an open border and passive courts to achieve permanent majorities, even if illegal immigration threatens American citizens' lives through criminal or terrorist activity. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Illegal immigrant gang-bangers and terrorists can't weaponize the constitutional rights of citizenship they don't have to commit crimes while securing taxpayer-funded benefits, driving up food and housing prices while also driving down wages. President Trump was elected by substantial popular and Electoral College majorities to secure our borders, and he has already succeeded. The border is closed because American citizens are sick and tired of criminals and terrorists running amok and destroying our society. These deportees have no right to be in our country. Surely, the U.S. judicial system will ultimately act appropriately and not stymy the will of the people — embodied by a president who is acting within the scope of his executive authority. There are countless jurists who still act in good faith, and that begins by keeping their politics out of the law.
Reuters
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump administration pushes appeals court to enforce military's transgender ban
April 22 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged an appeals court to let it enforce its ban on openly transgender service members in the military. Jason Manion, arguing for the administration, asked a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to pause an order by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes last month blocking the ban while it considers the appeal more fully, arguing that courts must defer to the military's judgment. He also told the court that the government would soon ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift an order by a different appeals court blocking the ban in a separate case. Manion argued that both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court had allowed a similar ban to take effect during Trump's first term, though that ban applied only to new service members and allowed currently serving transgender members to remain. Both policies, Manion said, did not target people based on their transgender identity, but rather on the basis of having a diagnosis or symptoms of gender dysphoria — clinically significant distress at having one's sense of gender identity not match one's birth sex. The policy was "focused on a medical condition and related to medical treatments," he said, adding that people who identify as transgender can still serve as long as they do not have gender dysphoria or openly live as a sex different from their birth sex. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, peppered Manion with skeptical questions throughout the argument. "Your argument that this is not a ban on transgender service is that you can serve as a transgender person as long as you don't serve as a transgender person, is that right?" she said. Pillard also noted that the policy followed an executive order by Trump, a Republican, calling for a ban on the grounds that transgender identity was "not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member." "We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus (against transgender people) on its face," she said. Manion said that the policy could still be upheld if it could be explained by reasons other than animus, despite Trump's order. Shannon Minter, arguing for the current and would-be service members challenging the ban, urged the court to keep Reyes' block in place. The government has "identified literally no specific concrete harm" it would suffer if the ban remains blocked, Minter said, while the plaintiffs will be "labeled unfit for service for a reason that has no relation to their ability to do their job" if the ban is enforced. The other two members of the panel, Circuit Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, were both appointed to the court by Trump during his first term in office. Both asked relatively few questions and did not clearly signal how they would rule. The case is Talbott v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 25-5087. For the government: Jason Manion of the U.S. Department of Justice For the plaintiffs: Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights Trump takes aim at DEI, COVID expulsions and transgender troops
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court halts Boasberg's contempt proceedings against Trump administration
A divided federal appeals court panel on Friday temporarily halted U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's contempt proceedings against the Trump administration over its deportation flights to El Salvador last month. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indicated its order is intended to provide 'sufficient opportunity' for the court to consider the government's appeal and 'should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.' But for now, it prevents Boasberg from moving ahead with his efforts to hold administration officials in contempt. The judge on Wednesday found probable cause for contempt, calling the government's refusal to turn around the March 15 deportation flights 'a willful disregard' for the court's order. The three-judge D.C. Circuit panel split 2-1. The two Trump appointees, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, ruled for the administration. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former President Obama, dissented. 'In the absence of an appealable order or any clear and indisputable right to relief that would support mandamus, there is no ground for an administrative stay,' Pillard wrote in a brief explanation. Boasberg, an Obama appointee, has drawn Trump's ire ever since the judge last month blocked the president from using the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used, wartime law, to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to an El Salvador megaprison. Last week, the Supreme Court lifted the judge's order, ruling the migrants must be afforded judicial review but that they need to file their legal challenges where they are physically detained. Boasberg has still endeavored to press ahead with contempt proceedings, since his order was in effect for some time before the high court lifted it. And the D.C. Circuit's ruling on Friday came just as Boasberg was thrust back into a new deportation flight battle. The ruling landed within seconds of Boasberg wrapping an emergency hearing on a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to block what it says is a new, imminent wave of deportations to El Salvador. At the hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign insisted no flights are planned through Saturday but cautioned, 'I have also been told to say that they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow.' 'We feel stuck, and I don't know that the government has provided a satisfactory answer to how we won't be continuously stuck,' responded Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney. Boasberg declined to intervene, saying the Supreme Court's ruling meant he had no authority to step in. 'I'm sympathetic to your conundrum. I understand the concern. I think they're all valid,' Boasberg told Gelernt. 'But at this point, I just don't think I have the power to do anything about it.' The ACLU still has pending requests with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court for an immediate intervention. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
