Latest news with #InternationalEconomicEmergencyPowersAct
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- 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
Trump threatens Canada with 35 per cent tariffs on Aug. 1 in letter posted online
US President Donald Trump threatened to impose 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian imports on Aug. 1 in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney posted on social media Thursday night, evidently setting a new date for bilateral negotiations between the two countries. Canada and the United States had committed to working on a new economic and security agreement with a July 21 deadline for a deal. The boosted tariff pressures call into question progress toward the initial time frame. Carney posted on social media later that throughout trade negotiations the Canadian government has "steadfastly defended our workers and businesses." "We will continue to do so as we work toward the revised deadline," he said referencing Aug. 1. Trump sent correspondence to a handful of countries this week outlining higher tariffs they'll face if they don't make trade deals by the start of August. Most of the countries — except Brazil — had been bracing for the return of Trump's looming so-called "reciprocal" tariffs this week. Trump pushed the deadline for those duties until Aug. 1 to give more time to negotiate trade deals. Canada was not subject to those tariffs and it's not clear why Trump sent the letter as the deadline for negotiations had not passed. In the letter, Trump said if Canada works to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States he may consider a tariff adjustment. Carney noted that Canada has made "vital progress to stop the scourge of fentanyl in North America." He said "we are committed to continuing to work with the United States to save lives and protect communities in both our countries." In his correspondence to Carney, Trump also pointed to supply management in the dairy sector, repeating his inaccurate claim about Canada putting 400 per cent tariffs on American dairy farmers. The president said the trade deficit with Canada is a threat to the American economy and national security. Carney pointed to efforts in building a "one Canadian economy" and strengthening relationships around the world. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said on social media that Canada has long been a trusted friend and partner to the United States and the tariffs are an unjustified attack on the Canadian economy. "Conservatives stand ready to do everything we can to secure the best deal for Canada by the July 21 deadline the Prime Minister has set," Poilievre said. "Our country stands united." Trump declared an emergency at the northern border in order to use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to slap Canada with 25 per cent tariffs in March, with a lower 10 per cent levy on energy and potash. He partially paused the duties a few days later for imports under the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement on trade. It is unclear whether there'd be any carve-out for imports compliant with the continental trade pact in Trump's latest tariff threats. There are additional tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, as well as a plan to introduce tariffs on copper, also on Aug. 1. The letter also pointed out that Canada had responded with retaliatory tariffs after Trump first imposed the duties. It said if Canada raises its duties, the United States will add an additional 35 per cent. The increased tariff comes as a new report from a New York-based think tank questioned the drug trafficking rationale of Trump's tariffs on Canada, saying the data shows the vast majority of fentanyl seizures are linked to the southern border. The Manhattan Institute analyzed newly released data on fentanyl and heroin seizures made in the 50 US states and Washington, D.C., from 2013 to 2024, with a focus on the last two years. The report released earlier this month found that about 99 per cent of the pills and 97 per cent of the powder were found along the border with Mexico. It found that large fentanyl seizures along the Canadian border were rare. "The main takeaway is that all indications are that the vast majority of fentanyl consumed in the United States arrived via the southwest border with Mexico," co-author Jonathan Caulkins said Thursday. "Quantities coming from Canada are negligible." Canadians have pointed to US Customs and Border Protection data that shows a minuscule volume of fentanyl is seized at the northern border. The RCMP have said there is little to no evidence to support that claim that Canadian fentanyl is spreading in the United States. The Trump administration has dismissed that justification and has maintained that Canada poses a large fentanyl threat. The Manhattan Institute report said its analysis "contradicts views — such as those used to justify certain tariffs — that treat the flows across the southern and northern borders as being comparably important." "Imagine someone who tried to pinch pennies by getting a friend to drive him to the airport whenever he took a luxury cruise. Or imagine a dieter who used artificial sweetener in his coffee whenever he ordered cheesecake for dessert," the report said. "The US effort to try to solve its fentanyl problem by focusing on the northern border with Canada is similar." The report said that before the United States can act to counter fentanyl trafficking, it must understand how it works. It found that 32 times as much powder and 78 times as many pills were seized in counties along the Mexican border as in those counties sharing the land border with Canada. Caulkins, a professor at Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University, said when it comes to fentanyl, Canada and the United States "are in the same boat." Both countries are beset by high overdose death rates from synthetic opioids manufactured outside their borders. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 10, 2025.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court now has a chance to have the final say on Trump's tariffs
The Supreme Court is being asked by two toy companies to rule on the legal fight over President Trump's tariffs, giving the nation's highest court the chance to determine whether the president has the authority to enact some of his most aggressive trade policies. That key question hangs in the balance after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) sided in May with a group of small businesses that argued Trump lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., which has allowed Trump's tariffs to stay in force while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the duties. Oral arguments are scheduled to start on July 31. But now two toy companies that filed a separate tariff lawsuit against Trump — Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc. — have asked the Supreme Court to consider their case and put it on a fast track. In recent terms, this court has allowed prompt review in cases of similarly (or less) far-reaching political and economic Importance. All of the challengers to Trump's tariffs are arguing that the administration's basis for the duties — a national emergency caused by illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — was unauthorized because it did not directly address the stated emergency. 'Whether the President has authority to impose tariffs…is of such imperative importance that it warrants review now,' the toy companies said in their Tuesday filing to the Supreme Court. The toy companies have already won a victory before US District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington but the decision was narrow in scope. Trump appealed it and now the companies want to skip that battle and go directly to the nation's highest court. The companies want the Supreme Court to decide on whether to take this case before its summer recess starts near the end of this month, setting up possible arguments in the fall. They argue in their petition to the court that an analysis by JPMorgan shows the round of Trump tariffs at issue 'would hike taxes on Americans by $660 billion a year, the largest tax increase in recent memory by a longshot,' and 'cause prices to surge' by 'adding 2% to the Consumer Price Index.' Since the beginning of the year, the tariff onslaught has caused 'the nation's overall average effective tariff rate' to jump from '2.5 percent' to 'around 27 percent'—more than a tenfold increase, and 'the highest for the U.S. in more than a century.' Legal experts have long predicted that the legality of Trump's tariff justifications would eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. That could mean the Trump administration will have to grapple with the hurdle of the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. Trump's legal team is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to eventually 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. And Nixon's duties also suffered an initial defeat. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome the Trump administration has cited in court documents, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court now has a chance to have the final say on Trump's tariffs
The Supreme Court is being asked by two toy companies to rule on the legal fight over President Trump's tariffs, giving the nation's highest court the chance to determine whether the president has the authority to enact some of his most aggressive trade policies. That key question hangs in the balance after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) sided in May with a group of small businesses that argued Trump lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., which has allowed Trump's tariffs to stay in force while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the duties. Oral arguments are scheduled to start on July 31. But now two toy companies that filed a separate tariff lawsuit against Trump — Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc. — have asked the Supreme Court to consider their case and put it on a fast track. In recent terms, this court has allowed prompt review in cases of similarly (or less) far-reaching political and economic Importance. All of the challengers to Trump's tariffs are arguing that the administration's basis for the duties — a national emergency caused by illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — was unauthorized because it did not directly address the stated emergency. 'Whether the President has authority to impose tariffs…is of such imperative importance that it warrants review now,' the toy companies said in their Tuesday filing to the Supreme Court. The toy companies have already won a victory before US District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington but the decision was narrow in scope. Trump appealed it and now the companies want to skip that battle and go directly to the nation's highest court. The companies want the Supreme Court to decide on whether to take this case before its summer recess starts near the end of this month, setting up possible arguments in the fall. They argue in their petition to the court that an analysis by JPMorgan shows the round of Trump tariffs at issue 'would hike taxes on Americans by $660 billion a year, the largest tax increase in recent memory by a longshot,' and 'cause prices to surge' by 'adding 2% to the Consumer Price Index.' Since the beginning of the year, the tariff onslaught has caused 'the nation's overall average effective tariff rate' to jump from '2.5 percent' to 'around 27 percent'—more than a tenfold increase, and 'the highest for the U.S. in more than a century.' Legal experts have long predicted that the legality of Trump's tariff justifications would eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. That could mean the Trump administration will have to grapple with the hurdle of the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. Trump's legal team is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to eventually 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. And Nixon's duties also suffered an initial defeat. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome the Trump administration has cited in court documents, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Treasury's Bessent to testify amid China trade deal: What to know
President Trump announced earlier Wednesday morning that the US and Chinese officials have reached a trade deal, which includes a 55% tariff on imported goods from China. Both nations' leaders have yet to officially agree upon the terms. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is scheduled to testify before lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Ahead of Bessent's testimony, Yahoo Finance senior Washington reporter Jennifer Schonberger outlines the details of the proposed trade agreement and Bessent's comments about the trade talks. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Morning Brief here. The US and Chinese officials reached an agreement during a London meeting this week. President Trump cheering the deal on so Truth Social this morning outlining some of the details and hailing the relationship between the two countries as excellent. Here are the details. Our very own Fed correspondent, Jennifer Schonberger. Hey, Jennifer. Good morning, Maddie. Treasury Secretary Scott Benson set to testify this morning here on Capitol Hill just hours after wrapping up two days of trade negotiations with China. Benson along with Commerce Secretary Howard Letnick and US Trade Representative Jameson Greer were able to restore the trade pact that was struck in Geneva just last month. But there are still question marks about what is exactly contained within this framework. President Trump posted on Truth Social about an hour ago that it looks like tariffs are actually going to rise to 55% on China from 30%, while China will have a 10% tariff on the US. He said we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities, which has always been good with me. He said the relationship is quote, excellent. Now, apparently or reportedly, the Chinese drove a bit of a hard bargain, asking whether the US would lift export controls on certain US technologies to China in return for lifting export controls on those rare earth minerals, that roadblock that had emerged in talks that inspired the second set of conversations. Uh, President Trump implying that that will likely go forward. Uh, Commerce Secretary Letnick saying Tuesday evening that once the Chinese begin exporting those critical rare earth minerals that the US will lift export controls on some US technologies. Uh, President Trump saying though that he still needs to approve this deal and Chinese President Xi Jinping also needs to sign off on this deal. So still a lot of question marks remaining here. Now, Secretary Benson set to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee at 10:00 a.m. this morning where hopefully we will get some more details on this deal. And guys, separately last night we learned that a US appeals court ended up extending a stay that had put been put in place reversing the US International Trade Court's ruling that had rendered the president's tariffs under IEEPA, that International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Uh, so those those reciprocal tariffs still remain in place, although they have been paused for 90 days. A hearing has been set for July 31st. Back to you. Jennifer, thank you.
