Latest news with #Illinois-based
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Midtown Memphis dairy plant announces immediate closure
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Prairie Farms Dairy, a Midtown Memphis landmark for decades, is closing Friday, effective immediately. A statement released by the company says 120 employees at the plant are affected. Some employees will be retained. Illinois-based Prairie Farms will continue to distribute dairy products from centers in Memphis and Jackson, the company said. The Madison Avenue dairy has operated under a variety of owners over the years, including Forest Hill and Turner. The plant on Madison near Overton Square has operated since 1927, according to former city planner and local history blogger Josh Whitehead,. The site was previously was an amusement park called East End Park. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Day after being blocked by trade court, Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay
In a fast-moving legal reversal, a federal appeals court in Washington reinstated President Donald Trump's expansive tariffs on foreign imports on Thursday, one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority under emergency powers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay on the lower court's decision, allowing the tariffs announced on April 2—labelled by Trump as 'Liberation Day' duties—to remain in effect while the government appeals. "The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted to the extent that the judgments and the permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in these cases are temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers," the order stated, as reported by The Independent. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo Trade court calls Trump's move unlawful, illegal The trade court had ruled that Trump unlawfully invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. A three-judge panel concluded that IEEPA, designed for urgent national threats, did not justify sweeping tariffs in response to long-standing trade deficits. "The reason that he chose IEEPA was he thought he could do this unilaterally without much oversight by Congress ,' said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center , which represented five small businesses challenging the tariffs. 'The court saw through that.' Live Events The same ruling also blocked additional tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico, and China, which the administration had linked to the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. Tariff chaos spurs courtroom battles Trump's tariffs are being challenged in at least seven legal cases. The trade court's latest ruling came from two combined suits: one brought by five small businesses, the other by a coalition of 12 U.S. states. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a narrower injunction protecting two Illinois-based educational toy companies. The Liberty Justice Center warned that the businesses it represents faced '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,' according to Schwab. Financial markets responded with guarded optimism following the trade court's ruling, but traders remained cautious as the appeals process unfolds. The reinstatement of tariffs kept the effective U.S. tariff rate near 15%, according to Oxford Research , compared to 6% if the lower court's order had held. Before Trump returned to office, tariffs averaged between 2% and 3%. Trump responds with defiance Trump dismissed the trade court's ruling in a social media post on Thursday night, framing it as an attack on the presidency itself. "The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs," Trump wrote. "If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America." White House trade adviser Peter Navarro echoed Trump's combative stance, telling reporters that the administration will pursue tariffs 'through other means' if the court challenge fails. Alternative legal pathways already lined up Navarro said the administration is prepared to switch to other legal authorities if IEEPA becomes unavailable, including Section 301 for unfair trade practices or Section 232 for national security grounds—both previously used to impose steel and aluminium tariffs. Other rarely used options include Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. 'So you can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way,' Navarro stated. Section 122 permits a 15% tariff for 150 days to protect U.S. balance-of-payments or the dollar's value, but an extension would require congressional approval. Section 338, which hasn't been used since the 1940s, allows retaliatory tariffs of up to 50% against countries discriminating against U.S. goods. 'Be careful what you ask for' As told to Reuters, Dan Ujczo, a U.S.-Canada trade expert at Thompson Hine, said the Trump team could even ask Congress for more tariff power, potentially making the duties more permanent. 'For folks celebrating this opinion, this may be a case of be careful what you ask for,' Ujczo warned. Former Trump trade adviser Kelly Ann Shaw agreed. 'I think there's plenty of other authority that the administration could use to justify very similar, or, if not the same, measures,' she said. 'And so when I'm talking to companies, clients and governments, I think the safest thing to assume is that these tariffs will still continue to exist in some form, if not the identical one.' Trump's original April 2 tariff announcement triggered a brief market panic, prompting the White House to delay the steepest duties for 90 days. So far, only a deal with Britain has been finalised; other negotiations remain in limbo. Analysts say the legal uncertainty may make trading partners like Japan more reluctant to enter agreements. 'Assuming that an appeal does not succeed in the next few days, the main win is time to prepare, and also a cap on the breadth of tariffs — which can't exceed 15% for the time being,' said George Lagarias, chief economist at Forvis Mazars . Foreign governments have responded cautiously. The UK government called the legal battle a 'domestic matter.' Germany and the European Commission declined to comment, while Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the ruling was 'consistent with Canada's longstanding position' that the tariffs were unlawful. Meanwhile, companies continue to feel the pinch. Major brands like Diageo, General Motors, and Ford have dropped financial forecasts for the year. Others, including Honda, Campari, Roche, and Novartis , are reportedly considering shifting operations to the U.S. to mitigate the fallout. Though slowed by the courts, Trump's tariff campaign shows no sign of stopping. As appeals progress, businesses and governments are bracing for the next move.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Day after being struck down, US appeals court allows Trump tariffs to 'temporarily' stay in effect
US President Donald Trump has been temporarily allowed to keep enforcing tariffs under emergency powers, just a day after a federal court ruled he had overstepped his authority by trying to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. In a strongly-worded decision on Wednesday, the US court of international trade said that Trump unlawfully invoked emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and slap tariffs on imports from nearly every country in the world. The ruling is a major blow to Trump, whose turbulent trade policies rattled global markets, triggered supply chain chaos, and sparked concerns about inflation and sluggish growth. However, the legal fight is far from over, as the US court of appeals for the federal circuit allowed the president to continue collecting tariffs under IEEPA, at least temporarily, while he appeals the trade court's ruling. The Trump administration also has other tools to lure factories back to America, raising funds for the US treasury. Trump's tariff policies are challenged in at least seven lawsuits. The court's ruling stems from two combined cases: one from a group of five small businesses, and another from 12 U.S. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo states. 'The reason that he chose IEEPA was he thought he could do this unilaterally without much oversight by Congress,' said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, who represented the small businesses. 'The court saw through that.' In its decision, the trade court pointed out that America has run trade deficits for nearly 50 years, hardly an urgent or unforeseen crisis. Another judge, US district Judge Rudolph Contreras, also issued a narrower ruling on Thursday blocking tariffs applied to two Illinois-based educational toy companies, further complicating the president's strategy. The original IEEPA tariffs, introduced on what Trump dubbed "Liberation Day" — April 2 — included up to 50% duties on countries with trade surpluses against the U.S., and a 10% baseline tariff for most others. Though Trump paused the steeper levies for 90 days to allow time for negotiation, he kept the lower ones in place. Markets Financial markets reacted with caution. Stocks saw modest gains on Thursday, with analysts suggesting investors expect the White House to find another way to push its trade plans forward. '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 Ebury. What if tariffs are lifted permanently ? Even if the IEEPA tariffs are ultimately struck down, Trump's broader tariff regime remains. Levies on Chinese imports, introduced during his first term and maintained by President Joe Biden, are still in place. These were part of a broader confrontation over China's alleged unfair subsidies, forced technology transfers and cybertheft. Analysts at Capital Economics said if the IEEPA tariffs are permanently lifted, US growth could rebound in late 2025. They project the economy would grow at a 2% annual rate, up from their earlier 1.5% forecast, with inflationary pressures also easing. Importers may also benefit. 'If the trade court's decision is upheld, importers should eventually be able to get a refund of (IEEPA) tariffs paid to date,' wrote Peter Harrell of the Carnegie Endowment on X. 'But the government will probably seek to avoid paying refunds until appeals are exhausted.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Ulta: Fiscal Q1 Earnings Snapshot
BOLINGBROOK, Ill. (AP) — BOLINGBROOK, Ill. (AP) — Ulta Beauty Inc. (ULTA) on Thursday reported fiscal first-quarter profit of $305.1 million. On a per-share basis, the Bolingbrook, Illinois-based company said it had net income of $6.70. The results topped Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of 14 analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of $5.77 per share. The beauty products retailer posted revenue of $2.85 billion in the period, also exceeding Street forecasts. Eleven analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $2.8 billion. Ulta expects full-year earnings to be $22.65 to $23.20 per share, with revenue in the range of $11.5 billion to $11.7 billion. _____ This story was generated by Automated Insights ( using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on ULTA at Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Second federal court blocks Trump's tariffs
A second federal court blocked the bulk of President Trump's tariffs on Thursday, ruling he cannot claim unilateral authority to impose them by declaring emergencies over trade deficits and fentanyl. The ruling from U.S District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in the nation's capital, comes hours after the U.S. Court of International Trade similarly blocked a series of Trump's tariff announcements. The administration quickly appealed both rulings. Since February, Trump has attempted to impose tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). The law authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency to combat an 'unusual and extraordinary threat,' but a series of businesses and plaintiffs have argued the law doesn't authorize tariffs. 'This case is not about tariffs qua tariffs,' Contreras wrote in his 33-page opinion. 'It is about whether IEEPA enables the President to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy,' he continued. 'The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it does not.' The order blocks both Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement that imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff and steeper rates on dozens of U.S. trading partners as well as Trump's various tariffs on China. Trump initially announced a 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods in February before raising the rate in a series of subsequent announcements through April, at one point reaching 145 percent for some goods. The administration temporarily slashed the rate after trade talks in Geneva. Despite the courts indefinitely blocking those announcements, some of Trump's other tariffs remain in place, as they are rooted in other legal authorities. Those primarily concern specific products, like steel and automobiles. 'The courts should have no role here,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a briefing Thursday moments after the ruling came down. 'There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process. America cannot function if President Trump, or any president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.' Thursday's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by two Illinois-based small businesses, Learning Resources and hand2mind, that manufacture educational toys mostly in China and other foreign countries. Their case is one of a handful of legal challenges to Trump's tariffs making their way through the courts. Contreras noted his ruling would have 'virtually no effect on the government' because the U.S. Court of International Trade had blocked Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the IEEPA on Wednesday evening in a separate lawsuit. The Trump administration has attempted to move all the various cases to the trade court, but Contreras refused the request as part of Thursday's ruling, allowing it to proceed in Washington, D.C. It's a break from judges in Florida and Montana, who both agreed to the administration's request. A similar motion remains pending in a lawsuit brought by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who filed his case in San Francisco. Updated: 2:29 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
