Latest news with #Ieepa
Wall Street Journal
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The Rough Day in Court for Trump's Tariffs
WASHINGTON—President Trump's assertion of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs faced its toughest legal test yet on Thursday, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit voiced skepticism of his unilateral move to impose levies that are normally Congress's responsibility. The oral argument touched on key questions in the dispute: Do chronic problems like the trade imbalance and cross-border drug smuggling qualify as emergencies allowing the president to set aside normal laws? Do federal courts have the power to review the president's emergency determinations? And does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law known as Ieepa that Trump invoked, allow the president to impose tariffs at all?
Mint
31-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
Trump's Tariff authority is tested in court as deadline on trade deals looms
WASHINGTON—President Trump's trade agenda is entering a pivotal two-day stretch, with the administration moving to increase tariffs on imports from several nations while a federal appeals court considers the legality of his efforts. Trump in April outlined what he described as his 'Liberation Day" tariff regime, which included a global baseline tariff of 10% on imports from virtually all nations and steeper levies on nations the administration considers to be bad actors on trade. The 10% duties went into effect soon after the announcement, but Trump had paused the higher, so-called reciprocal tariffs until the end of this week to make room for negotiations on trade deals. The talks have intensified in the final days before the Aug. 1 deadline. Both elements of the Liberation Day tariffs were underpinned by a 1970s law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Typically, tariffs are imposed using targeted authority delegated to the president by Congress. Trump's team invoked the little-used emergency authority to impose the bulk of his wide-ranging second-term tariffs more quickly. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority, concluding that Ieepa didn't give him the power to impose sweeping tariffs that have sparked a global trade war. While a three-judge panel voided Trump's levies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit quickly paused that ruling to buy itself time to consider the case. The full court, with 11 judges participating, will hear arguments Thursday morning. The case, which combines challenges brought by a dozen states and a group of small businesses, is on a fast-track timeline. Whichever side loses is almost sure to seek review by the Supreme Court. The challengers have mounted a barrage of arguments, any one of which could sink Trump's efforts. Ieepa doesn't give the president power to impose tariffs at all, they say, and even if it did, they argue, it wouldn't allow the ones Trump adopted. They say that there are no extraordinary threats to the U.S. that justify invoking the law, and that his tariffs have no connection to the emergencies he claims. They also say the Constitution limits the ability of Congress to delegate any tariff authority to the president—and that no other president has ever used Ieepa the way Trump has. The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, says in response that Ieepa's text and legislative history gives the president power to regulate imports—including by imposing tariffs—and that his levies are valid and valuable bargaining chips to deal with real emergencies related to trade deficits and drug trafficking. The department also says the president's determination of what constitutes an emergency can't be second-guessed by the courts. U.S. officials have weighed their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. Meanwhile, Trump has used the threat of tariffs to notch commitments from trading partners such as Japan to invest in the U.S. The president's recent pact with the European Union followed a shift in strategy by the Europeans. EU officials in recent talks sought to contain the damage the tariffs will inflict on the bloc's companies and economy, rather than trying to negotiate them away outright. Imports from both Japan and the EU are expected to face 15% tariffs by the end of the week unless Trump further delays implementation of the levies. Other countries face even higher tariffs, such as 25% on Indian imports and 50% on Brazilian imports. Trump, in a social-media post Wednesday, said his Aug. 1 deadline 'stands strong, and will not be extended." There are mysteries surrounding some of Trump's agreements. The administration has yet to release the text of some of the pacts he and his team have discussed in public. In some cases, U.S. trading partners seem to differ from the president's views of what is in the agreements. Trump said his deal with the EU included a $600 billion investment in the U.S. European officials later said the $600 billion was based on private companies' plans for their own U.S. investments and not something the bloc controlled. If Trump wins in court, he will gain vast new powers to impose and relax taxes at will on foreign companies and individuals with U.S. connections, according to trade-law experts. If the administration loses, the picture for Trump's tariffs gets murky. The president 'could do what every president before him has done," and look to Congress to approve the deals, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, one of the groups suing the administration. Trade lawyers said countries could seek to renege on their deals—potentially prompting a new, messy, international fight. 'It's unlikely that a party is going to uphold a deal" if it can argue the deal was made improperly or under duress, said Michael Lowell, a partner at Reed Smith. 'If the Supreme Court does not uphold the authority, then the strength of those deals will be significantly weakened."
Business Times
09-07-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Trump tariff ‘blank check' must be curbed, appeals court told
[NEW YORK] A group of small businesses that won an order finding US 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 on Jul 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 (Jul 8). '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 Jul 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 the interpretation is overly broad. 'If such generic language authorised 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. 'Leepa is thus properly understood as a sanctions and embargo law, not a blank check for the president to rewrite tariff schedules.' BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The companies, led by New York wine importer VOS Selections, 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 jeopardise highly sensitive trade negotiations with other nations. But the companies said on 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 did not 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. BLOOMBERG
Business Times
29-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
US trade court blocks Trump's ‘Liberation Day' tariffs
[NEW YORK] A US trade court on Wednesday (May 28) blocked US President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs from going into effect, ruling that the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from nations that sell more to the United States than they buy. The Manhattan-based Court of International Trade said the US Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the US economy. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the president's use of tariffs as leverage. That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it,' a three-judge panel said in the decision. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 13 US states. The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business. At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the states' lawsuit, called Trump's tariffs unlawful, reckless and economically devastating. 'This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim,' Rayfield said. The White House and lawyers for groups that sued did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Ieepa), which is meant to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during a national emergency. The law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the US or freeze their assets. Trump is the first US president to use it to impose tariffs. The Justice Department has said the lawsuits should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not been harmed by tariffs that they have not yet paid, and because only Congress, not private businesses, can challenge a national emergency declared by the president under Ieepa. In imposing the tariffs in early April, Trump called the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his 10 per cent across-the-board tariff on all imports, with higher rates for countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits, particularly China. Many of those country-specific tariffs were paused a week later. The Trump administration on May 12 said it was also temporarily reducing the steepest tariffs on China while working on a longer-term trade deal. Both countries agreed to cut tariffs on each other for at least 90 days. Trump's on-and-off-again tariffs, which he has said are intended to restore US manufacturing capability, have shocked US financial markets. The US dollar rose against both the Swiss franc, a traditional currency safe-haven, and the Japanese yen following the court decision. Wednesday's decision can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, and ultimately the US Supreme Court. REUTERS
The Guardian
04-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Florida stationery company files first lawsuit challenging Trump tariffs
A Florida stationery entrepreneur has become the first to legally challenge Donald Trump's new China tariffs, claiming they were imposed illegally and threaten American small businesses. Emily Ley, a lifestyle influencer and the founder of Simplified, filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday in Florida against Trump and his administration, arguing the president unlawfully bypassed required procedures when implementing the 20% tariff on Chinese imports. The legal challenge comes amid escalating global trade tensions, including China announcing retaliatory tariffs of 34% on all US goods starting on 10 April in response to Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs. Global markets have already seen trillions wiped from valuations as fears of a recession mount. 'These unlawfully implemented tariffs cause harm to American businesses, American jobs, and American consumers and will be the end of many American dreams,' Ley wrote in a post on social media. The peculiar and sweeping nature of Trump's tariffs has raised eyebrows, with even uninhabited territories like Australia's remote Heard Island and McDonald Islands – home only to penguins and volcanic landscapes – appearing on the White House's list of places facing new trade duties. Despite market turmoil and likely more lawsuits, Trump wrote on Truth Social that his economic policies 'will never change', telling foreign investors 'this is a great time to get rich, richer than ever before!!!' Ley's Pensacola-based company, which sells premium planners and organizational tools, argues Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Ieepa) instead of traditional trade rules, which require detailed investigations before tariffs can be implemented. The lawsuit also claims Trump has not demonstrated the tariffs are 'necessary' to address the opioid emergency he cited when imposing them in February, then doubling them in March. Supporters of the president have held that small and local companies like Simplified should go all in on using American manufacturing for their products, an idea the company maintains it has already tried without success. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion 'We pursued domestic manufacturing from the outset,' Ley wrote on Instagram. 'Our first planners were made in the US in 2012. Each unit cost $38 to make. The US did not/does not yet have the infrastructure to support what we make.' The lawsuit adds that the tariffs will divert money that 'could be used to pay salaries, fund growth and pour into communities' and instead forces small businesses like hers to either raise prices dramatically or cut staff.
