Latest news with #JimmieReyna
CBC
01-08-2025
- Business
- CBC
Judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over U.S. President Donald Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs, including the tariff on Canada that he just raised to 35 per cent. Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval and hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. "IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere," circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government attorney's arguments. Brett Shumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing "no president has ever read IEEPA this way" but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by then president Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. WATCH | Meet Oregon's attorney general, leading the court battle against Trump's tariffs: Court test for tariffs: The CBC's Hillary Johnstone talks with Oregon attorney general Dan Rayfield 18 hours ago President Donald Trump's global tariff regime was in court Thursday in a fight for its survival. Get the latest on the CBC News App, and CBC News Network for breaking news and analysis. In sharp exchanges with Shumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. "If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness," chief circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "and he puts a 20 per cent tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with [it]." Trump's move is 'breathtaking' power grab: plaintiffs' lawyer Shumate said Congress's passage of IEEPA gave the president "broad and flexible" power to respond to an emergency, but that "the president is not asking for unbounded authority." But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's manoeuvre as a "breathtaking" power grab that amounted to saying "the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency." No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE "DEAD," WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS." In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that "a national emergency exists" necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. court of international trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers. The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centres on Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country, as well as tariffs imposed separately on Canada and Mexico, which Trump justified as a response to cross-border fentanyl trafficking and illegal migration. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term, and continued by then president Joe Biden. WATCH | Breaking down the winners and loser in Trump's tariff gambit: Win, lose or tariff? Playing Trump's trade deal game 13 hours ago With deals being cut and the U.S. tariff deadline creeping closer, CBC's Eli Glasner breaks down the winners and losers in Donald Trump's radical reshaping of the global economy. The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other countries. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods and a maker of fishing gear. The U.S. constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades, lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18 per cent, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident after the hearing, arguing that the judges "didn't buy" the Trump administration's arguments. "You would definitely rather be in our shoes going forward," Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs — which are paid by importers in the United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers — amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. "This was done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office," he said.
Associated Press
01-08-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs. Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government attorney's arguments. Brett Shumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. In sharp exchanges with Shumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Shumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers. The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term, and continued by President Joe Biden. The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades, lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident after the hearing, arguing that the judges 'didn't buy'' the Trump administration's arguments. 'You would definitely rather be in our shoes going forward,'' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs — which are paid by importers in the United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers — amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. 'This was done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office,' he said.
E&E News
01-08-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Trump's tariffs get frosty reception at federal appeals court
Federal appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned President Donald Trump's authority to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign trading partners under an unprecedented use of emergency powers. Several judges of the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly wondered how Trump could justify the broad tariffs using a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, that presidents have used to set economic sanctions and other penalties on foreign countries — but never previously tariffs. 'One of the major concerns that I have is that IEEPA doesn't even mention the word tariffs anywhere,' said Judge Jimmie Reyna, an Obama appointee. Advertisement Other judges seemed to agree that Trump had used a statute intended to give presidents emergency powers to deal with an international crisis to, instead, usurp a key congressional responsibility.
Globe and Mail
31-07-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs. Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government attorney's arguments. Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible" power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers. The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term, and continued by President Joe Biden. The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. ____
San Francisco Chronicle
13-05-2025
- Science
- San Francisco Chronicle
UC Berkeley wins chance to reclaim lucrative gene editing patent
With potentially huge sums at stake, a federal court on Monday reinstated UC Berkeley's legal claim seeking nationwide rights to develop and market gene editing, the transfer of genetic technology between living organisms with the capability of curing diseases. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in 2022 that the patent for so-called CRISPR technology belonged to the Broad Institute, affiliated with Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which had published a study in 2012 describing how the technology could be used to alter genes in plants and animals. The board rejected a competing claim from the University of California, whose scientists had reported on the use of CRISPR technology to alter DNA six months before the Broad study. The patent board said the UC Berkeley report was the first of its kind but did not apply directly to genes in plants and animals. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Monday that UC had presented evidence that its findings could be developed and applied to genes in all living creatures. The patent board cited the UC scientists' 'experimental difficulties and … statements of doubt' about the application of their newly discovered technology, but failed to consider evidence that 'routine methods or skill' could enable the scientists to clear those hurdles and show that they were the original source of the information, Judge Jimmie Reyna wrote in the 3-0 ruling. The court ordered the patent board to reconsider UC's contention that its study was the original breakthrough. 'This could end up being a big windfall for the University of California,' said Jacob Sherkow, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Illinois who has followed the issue for more than a decade. He said the Broad Institute was paid $400 million in one of its first contracts with companies seeking to license the CRISPR technology. That contract and others already signed are not at risk, Sherkow said, but if Broad loses the patent, 'no one will sign a future license with them.' Jeff Lamken, an attorney for UC in the case, said the ruling would enable the patent board to 're-evaluate the evidence under the correct legal standard and confirm what the rest of the world has recognized: that the (UC scientists) were the first to develop this groundbreaking technology for the world to share.' The Broad Institute said in a statement that it was 'confident' the patent board 'will reach the same conclusion and will again confirm Broad's patents, because the underlying facts have not changed.' The UC team was led by biochemist Jennifer Doudna and also included French scientist Emmanuelle Charpentier. In 2020, those two won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their research on CRISPR, the first time two or more women had won that prize without a male partner. In its 2022 ruling, the patent board cited Doudna's statement that the UC study had one shortcoming: 'We weren't sure if (the technology) would work in eukaryotes,' the cells found in plants and animals. The board noted that the scientists had experienced several failures in experiments with fish and human cells, and concluded that – unlike the Broad Institute study six months later – UC's report was 'not yet a definite and permanent reflection of the complete invention as it (would) be used in practice.' But the appeals court said the patent board should have allowed UC to show that its scientists had made the crucial findings in their 2012 report and could take the final steps by using ordinary scientific methods and skills.
