Latest news with #FederalCircuit
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump's tariff lawsuits may not slow his larger trade war
A courtroom showdown over President Trump's tariffs is coming at the end of July, just one day before a series of steep duties are scheduled to take effect for dozens of countries around the world. But it could still take a lot longer to permanently settle the legal question of whether the president has authority to impose his wide-ranging tariffs, according to legal experts and even a participant in the current case. "If we win," the Trump administration 'could try to use other statutes' to justify new tariffs, said Ilya Somin, a lawyer for the small business importers that successfully challenged Trump's tariffs before a lower court in May. 'And that would be a lengthy, complex discussion about what [the president] can do,' added Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and constitutional studies chair at the Cato Institute. The small business importers that proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May will make their arguments again on July 31 before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, after also winning a lower court victory. These legal challenges to Trump's escalating trade war don't necessarily pose an immediate danger to Trump's broader tariff plans for a few reasons, according to legal and trade experts. One, even if he loses the current cases on appeal, Trump could turn to other statutes that administration officials believe allow him to also act unilaterally. Any lawsuits designed to stop those moves would likely stretch for months into 2026. Another complicating factor for challengers is that the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for lower courts to issue a nationwide injunction against a presidential action. It did so in a ruling last month in a case stemming from a Trump executive order ending a longstanding US rule on birthright citizenship. The court's decision could be relevant for the tariff cases, since in May the small business importers were able to convince the US Court of International Trade to issue a nationwide injunction against Trump's tariffs after concluding he lacked authority to impose his duties by executive order under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put that order on hold while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the IEEPA duties, which are now scheduled to take effect on Aug. 1 unless countries are able to negotiate new deals in the coming weeks. 'I think trading partners should take the message and probably do take the message that they can't rely on the courts to protect them from tariff actions from the United States,' said Greta Peisch, an international trade attorney and former general counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). She and other trade experts say the matter is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court, though not necessarily on an expedited basis. Peisch also noted the two cases now before appeals courts won't address the president's authority under other statutes that carve out exceptions to Congress' tariff power. These alternative statutes include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on a foreign nation so long as the US Trade Representative finds the nation has violated trade agreements or engaged in unfair trade practices. They also include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on certain imports designated as a threat to the US economy, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that empowers the president to impose tariffs on countries that unreasonably restrict US goods. There are a lot of questions about how those other laws may work, Peisch said, because some haven't been challenged in court. 'I think what that means for negotiating partners and for importers, is that the outcome of the case and the timing is not something that they can certainly hang their hat on and depend on as something that's going to change the dynamics and the calculus in the next months, maybe even year,' she said. One loophole that the Supreme Court left in place that could work against Trump is that it has kept intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of presidential executive orders through class action lawsuits. The lawyer working with the importers that are challenging Trump's tariffs, Somin, said 'we believe we don't need, necessarily, a class action to get a broad remedy here.' A complete remedy, Somin added, 'requires a broad injunction barring these IEEPA tariffs entirely.' Somin also noted that if the president does turn to other statutes to impose tariffs, they could be more limited than the widespread duties justified under IEEPA. 'What I do not think you can do is start a gargantuan trade war with the entire world, which is what he has tried to use IEEPA to do,' Somin said. Ben Werschkul contributed to this article. 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 Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
National Observer
11-07-2025
- Business
- National Observer
PM will meet premiers, cabinet to discuss new US tariff threats
Prime Minister Mark Carney will be meeting with his cabinet and Canada's premiers to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump's new threat to slap 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods next month. The Prime Minister's Office announced there will be a cabinet meeting on Tuesday to discuss ongoing Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Carney's office said he also will meet with the premiers on July 22 as they gather for the annual Council of the Federation conference in Huntsville, Ont. Carney said Thursday his government will "steadfastly" defend workers and businesses. In a late night post on social media, Carney said Canada will continue to work to secure a trade deal with the U.S. by a revised deadline of Aug. 1. In a letter to Carney on Thursday, Trump threatened to impose 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods by that date — evidently setting a new deadline for the trade talks that were supposed to wrap up by July 21. A White House official said the 35 per cent tariff rate is only expected to be applied to goods already hit with a 25 per cent import tax. This would exempt goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, called CUSMA, plus energy and potash imports that face a 10 per cent tariff rate. The official said no final policy paper has been drafted and Trump has not yet made a final decision. Canada also faces additional U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, as well as a U.S. plan to introduce tariffs on copper on Aug. 1. Prime Minister Mark Carney will be meeting with his cabinet and Canada's premiers to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump's new threat to slap 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods next month. Asked about the tariff threat while leaving the White House Friday morning, Trump told reporters that "it was sent yesterday. They called. I think it was fairly well received." A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office said Carney and Trump did not speak Thursday night. She said that while officials from both countries meet daily as trade talks continue, Thursday's meeting took place before Trump sent his tariff letter. Trump's letter said if Canada works to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States, he may consider a tariff adjustment. U.S. government data shows the volume of fentanyl seized at the United States' northern border is minuscule compared to the amounts recovered at the border with Mexico. Trump declared an emergency at the northern border in order to use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, to slap Canada with economywide tariffs in March. He partially paused the duties a few days later for imports compliant under CUSMA. It's not clear whether Trump's use of IEEPA to hit nearly every nation with duties will survive a looming legal challenge. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments on July 31 — a day before the tariffs are set to return. The U.S. Court of International Trade said in May that Trump does not have the authority to use the national security statute for the fentanyl and so-called "reciprocal" tariffs. Trump's administration promptly appealed the decision and it's expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Trump has continued to use the tariff lever to pressure countries to sign trade deals. Canada was the latest nation to receive correspondence from Trump this week outlining higher duties. Marty Warren, national director of the United Steelworkers, said the government needs to take "urgent measures" to keep workers employed and industries running. The steel and aluminum sectors have been hard hit by Trump's 25 per cent tariffs on those metals, invoked under a national security rationale separate from the IEEPA tariffs. 'This is clearly about power and control. It has nothing to do with public safety or fair trade,' Warren said in a media statement. 'Canada cannot cave to blackmail. Our government must stand up for Canadian workers, enforce trade rules and protect our industries before it's too late.' Federal Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said at a time of uncertainty, Canada must strengthen its economic relationships with other nations. "We are not alone in this world," she said in Ottawa during a Friday news conference with Stéphane Séjourné, the visiting European Commission executive vice-president for prosperity and industrial strategy. "We need to be closer to our allies." When asked about plans for retaliation, Joly said Canada and China are the only nations that have taken such a stance so far. "We have had already a very strong response," Joly said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith discouraged Ottawa from imposing further retaliatory tariffs in a post on social media, saying it would "constitute a tax on Canadian consumers and businesses and only weaken Canada's economy further." Smith said the federal government should also drop "Trudeau-era anti-resource development laws." In a social media post, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said "we need to come together" and develop a plan to protect Canadian workers, business and communities. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said in a media statement that while Trump's tariff escalation is "concerning, it should not have much impact on Saskatchewan" because "about 95 per cent" of the province's exports are covered by the current free trade agreement. Ontario Conservative MP Adam Chambers sent a letter to the chair of the House of Commons international trade committee Friday afternoon asking for a meeting so MPs can discuss and debate Canada's negotiating position. Chambers wrote that trade-exposed businesses "deserve" a chance to tell Parliament about the "direct impacts of U.S. actions and Canadian countermeasures." "This is particularly urgent, as Parliament has not offered such a forum since it adjourned after a brief spring session," Chambers wrote. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said on social media that his party supports increasing trade ties with the European Union. He also accused Carney of "failing" by focusing on investments in the oil and gas sector, which he said would only affect trade "well after Donald Trump's departure." In Washington, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said the latest tariff threat against America's northern neighbour undermines the Trump administration's own negotiations to reach a trade deal, while the "consistent attacks" on Canada have damaged a "vital relationship." The Democrat from New Hampshire said she's heard many complaints about tourists not coming from Canada and lost business due to Trump's trade war.
The Hill
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Nearly 200 Democrats file legal brief challenging Trump's emergency tariff powers
Nearly 200 Democratic lawmakers have filed a legal brief supporting a lawsuit against the Trump administration's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. The brief bolsters a group of small businesses and Democratic-led states suing to block Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in advance of appeal arguments later this month. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led 28 Democratic senators and 162 House Democrats in the filing, calling the president's use of the IEEPA an 'unlawful abuse of emergency powers.' 'The President's reckless tariff agenda has caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country at a moment in which the cost of living is far too high,' Shaheen said in a statement to The Hill. 'This brief makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs. We will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to push back against the Administration's effort to tax goods American households and small businesses rely on.' Among those joining Shaheen in signing the letter are Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee; House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.); Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), chair of the House Democrats' Litigation Task Force; Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee. No Republican lawmaker submitted a brief backing Trump. The Democratic lawmakers' brief takes the challengers' maximalist position, contending the IEEPA does not grant the president authority to issue tariffs in any scenario. 'Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President's unlawful 'emergency' tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,' the brief reads. Citing emergencies over trade deficits and an influx of fentanyl, Trump has invoked the law to impose his 'Liberation Day' reciprocal tariffs and a series of levies on China, Mexico and Canada that date back to February. A federal trade court blocked them in late May by ruling the IEEPA, if nothing else, doesn't give Trump the 'unbounded' tariff authority he asserts. The administration is now appealing, and the case is scheduled for oral arguments on July 31 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit has lifted the block until it resolves the case. And while several other lawsuits proceeding at a slower pace also remain pending, no court ruling blocks any of Trump's tariffs. Trump has imposed a 10 percent tariff on countries across the globe but has routinely moved the goalposts on reciprocal tariffs that he initially intended to put into effect in April. While announcing new trade deals with the United Kingdom and Vietnam, Trump has now sent letters to at least 12 countries detailing new tariff benchmarks which are expected to go into effect on Aug. 1. 'The tariffs have already achieved successes,' the administration wrote in its opening appeal brief. 'They have spurred ongoing negotiations on trade agreements with major trading partners and have already produced the general terms of a historic trade deal with the United Kingdom.' In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he will not move the date that tariffs go into effect. 'TARIFFS WILL START BEING PAID ON AUGUST 1, 2025. There has been no change to this date, and there will be no change. In other words, all money will be due and payable starting AUGUST 1, 2025 – No extensions will be granted. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Tariff Foes Urge Appeals Court to Curb ‘Blank Check'
(Bloomberg) — A group of small businesses that won an order finding President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs illegal urged a federal appeals court to uphold that decision and block the trade levies. Are Tourists Ruining Europe? How Locals Are Pushing Back Singer Akon's Failed Futuristic City in Senegal Ends Up a $1 Billion Resort Can Americans Just Stop Building New Highways? Denver City Hall Takes a Page From NASA Philadelphia Trash Piles Up as Garbage Workers' Strike Drags On The US Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing broad tariffs, a power granted to Congress in the Constitution. That decision was temporarily put on hold by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will hear arguments July 31 on whether to let it go into effect or extend the stay. The companies challenging the tariffs filed their brief in the Federal Circuit on Tuesday. 'The government's claim of unbounded power to set, reset, rescind, and reapply tariffs of any amount against any product, based on a unilateral and unreviewable emergency declaration, runs contrary to the plain text' of the law, the businesses said in their brief. The appeals court showdown comes as Trump's aggressive tariffs continue to roil global markets. The hearing will take place a day before Trump's newly announced Aug. 1 deadline for tariffs go into effect, replacing his earlier July 9 date. He's insisted there will be no further extensions. At issue is Trump's interpretation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which says the president can 'regulate' certain foreign transactions during times of crisis. The president claims that persistent US trade deficits amount to a national emergency, allowing him to evoke the IEEPA, but the companies contend that interpretation is overly broad. 'If such generic language authorized taxation, the president would have vast taxing powers that no president in US history has ever been understood to have,' the businesses said in their brief. 'IEEPA is thus properly understood as a sanctions and embargo law, not a blank check for the president to rewrite tariff schedules.' The companies, led by New York wine importer V.O.S. Selections Inc., also claim that the impact of the tariffs is so sweeping that the matter requires Congressional action under the 'major questions' doctrine. Arguing that Trump's tariffs will 'reshape' the US economy, the companies say they will face much higher costs and lower sales, with some of them likely to end up in bankruptcy. The administration filed its own brief in the appeals case last month, arguing that Congress had 'delegated' tariff authority to the president to bolster his ability to manage foreign affairs. It further claimed that blocking the tariffs would disrupt US diplomacy and jeopardize highly sensitive trade negotiations with other nations. But the companies said Tuesday that Trump's back-and-forth threats on tariffs and the resulting uncertainty were evidence that he was misusing the emergency law. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. If the appeals court ultimately rules against Trump's tariffs, the Justice Department has said that it would ask the US Supreme Court to immediately intervene in the fight. A group of nearly 200 Democratic members of the US House and Senate on Tuesday night filed a separate brief in support of the small businesses and stressing the legislative branch's authority over taxes and tariffs. The IEEPA was never intended to be used to impose tariffs, they said. 'IEEPA extends to many forms of property that historically have never been subject to import tariffs, such as financial assets, real property, and intellectual property rights,' the Democrats said. 'Indeed, IEEPA has most commonly been applied to freezing financial assets or prohibiting certain financial transactions.' (Updates with brief filed in support of the businesses by Democratic members of Congress.) Will Trade War Make South India the Next Manufacturing Hub? 'Our Goal Is to Get Their Money': Inside a Firm Charged With Scamming Writers for Millions Pistachios Are Everywhere Right Now, Not Just in Dubai Chocolate 'Telecom Is the New Tequila': Behind the Celebrity Wireless Boom SNAP Cuts in Big Tax Bill Will Hit a Lot of Trump Voters Too ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
09-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Donald Trump's tariff 'blank check' must be curbed: Businesses to US court
A group of small businesses that won an order finding President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs illegal urged a federal appeals court to uphold that decision and block the trade levies. The US Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing broad tariffs, a power granted to Congress in the Constitution. That decision was temporarily put on hold by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will hear arguments July 31 on whether to let it go into effect or extend the stay. The companies challenging the tariffs filed their brief in the Federal Circuit on Tuesday. 'The government's claim of unbounded power to set, reset, rescind, and reapply tariffs of any amount against any product, based on a unilateral and unreviewable emergency declaration, runs contrary to the plain text' of the law, the businesses said in their brief. The appeals court showdown comes as Trump's aggressive tariffs continue to roil global markets. The hearing will take place a day before Trump's newly announced August 1 deadline for tariffs go into effect, replacing his earlier July 9 date. He's insisted there will be no further extensions. At issue is Trump's interpretation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which says the president can 'regulate' certain foreign transactions during times of crisis. The president claims that persistent US trade deficits amount to a national emergency, allowing him to evoke the IEEPA, but the companies contend that interpretation is overly broad. 'If such generic language authorized taxation, the president would have vast taxing powers that no president in US history has ever been understood to have,' the businesses said in their brief. 'IEEPA is thus properly understood as a sanctions and embargo law, not a blank check for the president to rewrite tariff schedules.' The companies, led by New York wine importer V.O.S. Selections Inc., also claim that the impact of the tariffs is so sweeping that the matter requires Congressional action under the 'major questions' doctrine. Arguing that Trump's tariffs will 'reshape' the US economy, the companies say they will face much higher costs and lower sales, with some of them likely to end up in bankruptcy. The administration filed its own brief in the appeals case last month, arguing that Congress had 'delegated' tariff authority to the president to bolster his ability to manage foreign affairs. It further claimed that blocking the tariffs would disrupt US diplomacy and jeopardize highly sensitive trade negotiations with other nations. But the companies said Tuesday that Trump's back-and-forth threats on tariffs and the resulting uncertainty were evidence that he was misusing the emergency law. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. If the appeals court ultimately rules against Trump's tariffs, the Justice Department has said that it would ask the US Supreme Court to immediately intervene in the fight.
