Latest news with #FederalCircuit
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump tariff plan faces uncertain future as court battles intensify
A federal appeals court paused a lower ruling blocking President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, siding with the administration Thursday in a legal fight over the White House's use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. The back-and-forth injected more volatility into markets this week after several weeks of relative calm, and court observers and economists told Fox News Digital they do not expect the dust to settle any time soon. Here's what to know as this litigation continues to play out. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed a lower court ruling Thursday that blocked two of Trump's sweeping tariffs from taking force. The ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App It came one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously to block the tariffs. Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. Now, lawyers for the Trump administration and the plaintiffs are tasked with complying with a fast schedule with deadlines in both courts. Plaintiffs have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response to the Court of International Trade, according to Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents five small businesses that sued the administration. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response to the stay and the Trump administration until June 9 to file a reply, Schwab told Fox News Digital in an interview. The goal is to move expeditiously, and lawyers for the plaintiffs told Fox News they plan to file briefs to both courts before the deadlines to mitigate harm to their clients. "Hopefully," Schwab said, the quick action will allow the courts to issue rulings "more quickly than they otherwise would." The Trump administration praised the stay as a victory. The appellate court stay on the CIT ruling "is a positive development for America's industries and workers," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. "The Trump administration remains committed to addressing our country's national emergencies of drug trafficking and historic trade deficits with every legal authority conferred to the president in the Constitution and by Congress." But some economists warned that continuing to pursue the steep tariffs could backfire. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders 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 had been the framework laid out earlier 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." 'American Hero' Or 'Failure': Elon Musk's Doge Departure Divides Capitol Hill Plaintiffs and the Trump administration wait. But whether that wait is a good or bad thing depends on who is asked. Economists noted that the longer the court process takes, the more uncertainty is injected into markets. This could slow economic growth and hurt consumers. For the U.S. small business owners that have sued Trump over the tariffs, it could risk potentially irreparable harm. "Some of the harm has already taken place. And the longer it goes on, the worse it is," said Schwab. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. But it's unclear if the high court would choose to take up the case. The challenge comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain, which could make the high court wary to take on such a politically charged case. Lawyers for the plaintiffs described the case as "very likely" to be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it's unclear whether it will move to review it. "It's possible that because the case is before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially applies to the country, unlike specific appellate courts, which have certain districts, that the Supreme Court might be OK with whatever the Federal Circuit decides and then not take the case," Schwab said. For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet. Beyond that, Schwab said, the court will weigh a balancing test. If both sides claim irreparable harm, the justices will ask, "Who is irreparably harmed more? "And I think it's fair to say that our clients are going to be more irreparably harmed than the United States federal government. Because our clients might not exist, and the United States federal government is certainly going to exist."Original article source: Trump tariff plan faces uncertain future as court battles intensify
Dubai Eye
17 hours ago
- Business
- Dubai Eye
Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay
A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Thursday, a day after a US trade court ruled that he had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court's ruling to consider the government's appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9. Wednesday's surprise ruling by the US Court of International Trade had threatened to kill or at least delay the imposition of Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs on imports from most US trading partners and additional tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China. The latter was related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US. The trade court's three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address threats during national emergencies. Senior Trump administration officials had said they were undeterred by the trade court's ruling, saying they expected either to prevail on appeal or employ other presidential powers to ensure the tariffs go into effect. Trump has used the threat of charging US importers costly tariffs for goods from almost every other country in the world as leverage in international trade talks, a strategy the trade court's ruling would upend. The trade court ruling had not interfered with any negotiations with top trading partners that are scheduled in the days ahead, Trump's administration said. Trump himself wrote in a statement shared on social media that he hoped the US Supreme Court would "reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision" of the trade court, while lambasting the judicial branch of government as anti-American. Many US trading partners offered careful responses. The British government said the trade court's ruling was a domestic matter for the US administration and noted it was "only the first stage of legal proceedings". Both Germany and the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, said they could not comment on the decision. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the trade court's finding was "consistent with Canada's longstanding position" that Trump's tariffs were unlawful. Financial markets, which have whipsawed in response to the twists and turns in Trump's chaotic trade war, reacted with cautious optimism to the trade court ruling, though gains in stocks on Thursday were largely limited by expectations that the court's ruling faced a potentially lengthy appeals process. Indeed, analysts said broad uncertainty remained regarding the future of Trump's tariffs, which have cost companies more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher costs, according to a Reuters analysis. Some sector-specific tariffs, such as on imports of steel, aluminum and automobiles, were imposed by Trump under separate authorities on national security grounds and were unaffected by the ruling. The Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit group representing five small businesses that sued over the tariffs, said the appeals court's temporary stay was a procedural step. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the center, said the appeals court would ultimately agree with the small businesses that faced irreparable harm of "the loss of critical suppliers and customers, forced and costly changes to established supply chains, and, most seriously, a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses". A separate federal court earlier on Thursday also found that Trump overstepped his authority in using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for what he called reciprocal tariffs of at least 10 per cent on goods from most US trading partners and for the separate 25 per cent levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to fentanyl. That ruling was much narrower, however, and the relief order stopping the tariffs applied only to the toy company that brought the case. The administration has appealed that ruling as well.
Fox News
19 hours ago
- Business
- Fox News
Trump tariff plan faces uncertain future as court battles intensify
A federal appeals court paused a lower ruling blocking President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, siding with the administration Thursday in a legal fight over the White House's use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. The back-and-forth injected more volatility into markets this week after several weeks of relative calm, and court observers and economists told Fox News Digital they do not expect the dust to settle any time soon. Here's what to know as this litigation continues to play out. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed a lower court ruling Thursday that blocked two of Trump's sweeping tariffs from taking force. The ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. It came one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously to block the tariffs. Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. Now, lawyers for the Trump administration and the plaintiffs are tasked with complying with a fast schedule with deadlines in both courts. Plaintiffs have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response to the Court of International Trade, according to Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents five small businesses that sued the administration. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response to the stay and the Trump administration until June 9 to file a reply, Schwab told Fox News Digital in an interview. The goal is to move expeditiously, and lawyers for the plaintiffs told Fox News they plan to file briefs to both courts before the deadlines to mitigate harm to their clients. "Hopefully," Schwab said, the quick action will allow the courts to issue rulings "more quickly than they otherwise would." The Trump administration praised the stay as a victory. The appellate court stay on the CIT ruling "is a positive development for America's industries and workers," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. "The Trump administration remains committed to addressing our country's national emergencies of drug trafficking and historic trade deficits with every legal authority conferred to the president in the Constitution and by Congress." But some economists warned that continuing to pursue the steep tariffs could backfire. 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 had been the framework laid out earlier 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." Plaintiffs and the Trump administration wait. But whether that wait is a good or bad thing depends on who is asked. Economists noted that the longer the court process takes, the more uncertainty is injected into markets. This could slow economic growth and hurt consumers. For the U.S. small business owners that have sued Trump over the tariffs, it could risk potentially irreparable harm. "Some of the harm has already taken place. And the longer it goes on, the worse it is," said Schwab. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. But it's unclear if the high court would choose to take up the case. The challenge comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain, which could make the high court wary to take on such a politically charged case. Lawyers for the plaintiffs described the case as "very likely" to be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it's unclear whether it will move to review it. "It's possible that because the case is before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially applies to the country, unlike specific appellate courts, which have certain districts, that the Supreme Court might be OK with whatever the Federal Circuit decides and then not take the case," Schwab said. For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet. Beyond that, Schwab said, the court will weigh a balancing test. If both sides claim irreparable harm, the justices will ask, "Who is irreparably harmed more? "And I think it's fair to say that our clients are going to be more irreparably harmed than the United States federal government. Because our clients might not exist, and the United States federal government is certainly going to exist."
Fashion United
a day ago
- Business
- Fashion United
Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs after trade court moves to block
A federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Donald Trump's tariffs, just a day after a trade court ruling found the majority of the global tariffs to exceed presidential authority. The ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington gave no further reasoning or clarification but granted the emergency notion from the Trump administration, giving the plaintiffs until June 5 to respond and the administration until June 9, noting that a pause is "critical for the country's national security." The White House applauded the ruling, as in its appeal, the administration argued that the trade court's ruling had overstepped judicial bounds by undermining presidential authority and jeopardizing the outcomes of protracted trade negotiations. "The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy," it said in the filing. The New York trade court's ruling on Wednesday sought to nullify tariffs introduced by President Trump in February on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing an overreach of presidential authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which, it ruled, does not permit such broad measures without Congressional involvement. The ruling also targeted Trump's global 10 percent import tax and increased reciprocal tariffs on key partners like the EU and China. However, it left untouched separate duties on cars, steel, and aluminum, which were enacted under different legislation. The White House has adjusted or paused some tariffs amid ongoing negotiations, and a hearing has been scheduled for June 5.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Nixon-era tariff fight that could help Trump
President Trump is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. The US Court of International Trade struck down many of Trump's tariffs Wednesday (just as Nixon's duties suffered an initial defeat_ and an appeals court on Thursday allowed Trump's duties to temporarily stay in place while legal arguments continue. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome that the Trump administration cited in court documents this week, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." It was in August 1971 that Nixon imposed his temporary 10% tariff in addition to standard duties on all imported goods. Nixon said the duty was meant to help address the country's escalating deficit crisis and slow the tide of imports, as an additional measure to the administration's decision to suspend the US dollar's convertibility to gold. A Japanese zipper maker sued, saying Nixon lacked power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial of the justifications was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 International Economic Emergency Power Act that Trump cited as a basis for his multiple tariffs this year. The US Customs Court, a predecessor to the US Court of International Trade, initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws were adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. While the lower court reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, the appeals court said the TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. The Trump administration argued that language in the TWEA law, carried over to the IEEPA, should likewise permit Trump's tariffs. Its lawyers went on to say that the US Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the Yoshida case by distinguishing the Nixon tariffs as more limited than those imposed by Trump. In the Yoshida appeal, the court ruled that an emergency-based import duty must be appropriately and reasonably related to the emergency declared. Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it's possible that Federal Circuit or Supreme Court judges will agree with the administration and conclude that the president does have broader authority than the Court of International Trade suggested. Entin said the lower court focused on two kinds of concerns related to the president's claimed authority under IEEPA. One is the "nondelegation doctrine," which says that Congress cannot give away its legislative authority, including its Constitutionally vested power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" to the president or executive branch officials. A broad reading of IEEPA like the one that Trump suggests, he said, would raise real questions about whether Congress had essentially given away that authority. Another concern before the court is the "major questions doctrine," which has been recognized by the current Supreme Court to require Congressional approval for executive branch actions of 'vast economic and political significance.' "Those arguments clearly resonated with the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree on this," Entin said. The administration also hinted at its strategy in citing a federal appeals court case in its request to pause the US Court of International Trade order. In Florsheim Shoe Co. v. US, it said, the appeals court ruled that the president's motives, reasoning, findings and judgment in his decision to remove duty-free status on imported buffalo leather were exempt from judicial scrutiny. Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said he expects the dispute to end up before the Supreme Court. 'Obviously this issue has huge economic consequences, one way or the other,' he said. 'It will probably get there. So it's just a question of when.' 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 while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
