Latest news with #JudicialSystem
CNN
30-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
White House grapples with whiplash legal rulings hitting heart of Trump's economic agenda
For a White House that has grown accustomed to a rollercoaster of legal rulings, judicial decisions over the past day throwing President Donald Trump's tariff plans into question landed like a bombshell. The rulings – which strike at the heart of Trump's economic agenda – represent far more of a threat to his priorities, White House officials said, than many other court opinions over the last four months since Trump returned to office. And perhaps no fight will prove as consequential to the president's agenda — at home and abroad — as the effort now underway by Trump and his administration to rescue his tariff policy after it was imperiled by a relatively obscure tribunal this week. The day after the US Court of International Trade — a panel housed in a boxy glass building in Lower Manhattan — ruled Trump lacked the authority to apply the sweeping sky-high tariffs under federal emergency powers, the president and his team quickly moved to have the ruling frozen. The administration blasted the Wednesday night decision, which was reached by a three-judge panel appointed by Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. Trump's team was successful; by Thursday afternoon, a federal appeals court in Washington had preserved the tariffs on an administrative basis, buying the White House time. In the interim, there was a scramble inside the White House to both identify other authorities that would allow Trump to move ahead with the stiff new duties and to swiftly petition the courts to pause enforcement. Back-up options could prove cumbersome. Many of the alternative routes would involve lengthy investigations or require approval from Congress, where support for tariffs — even among some Republicans — is lukewarm. 'We're not planning to pursue those right now because we're very, very confident that this really is incorrect,' Trump's top economist Kevin Hassett said early Thursday in a Fox Business interview, before affirming later in the day what other White House officials had been saying: that Trump's team was exploring all its options. 'Heaven forbid, if it ever did have trouble in the future, we've got so many other options on the table that the president's policy is going to be there,' he told reporters in the White House driveway. Still, it seemed evident that Trump's advisers believed the courts would provide the best resource, even if there was little certainty at how judges will ultimately rule. 'We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this,' Trump's hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro said following the stay decision. The whiplash rulings — which joined a string of on-again, off-again tariff moves orchestrated by Trump himself — only seemed to emphasize the degree of chaos that continues to color Trump's trade agenda. The tariffs were restored only temporarily, leaving foreign trade partners and investors in a state of limbo at least until June 9, the date by which the Justice Department must respond to those challenging the duties. The ultimate fate of Trump's prized tariffs, both a lynchpin of his wider economic agenda and the motivating force of his foreign policy, has now been thrust into deep uncertainty. And the prospects of the roughly 18 trade deals that the administration has said are being negotiated under threat of withering new tariffs — including three in their final stages, according to White House officials — now appear unclear. The legal and trade fights, which are now fully intertwined, present one of the biggest challenges yet for the administration – further complicated by urgent efforts to push the Senate to advance its budget and tax bill. Taken together, Trump faces a multi-front battle that could well define his presidency. Trump lashed out at the judiciary in a lengthy Thursday evening Truth Social post, taking aim at the three judges from the Court of International Trade. 'How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?' Hours earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had struck a similar tone, attacking 'unelected judges' ahead of the stay decision. 'America cannot function if President Trump, or any president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.' Trump remained behind closed doors Thursday, but did hold a meeting with Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, whom he has sharply criticized for not lowering interest rates. Powell has also expressed concern Trump's tariffs could lead to higher inflation and lower economic growth. The president's long-standing belief in tariffs has not been shaken, officials said, despite the series of legal, political and economic setbacks. While Trump has repeatedly argued that tariffs will make the United States wealthy, the counterargument that import taxes will be paid by consumers has made his sales pitch far more difficult. And businesses are begging for a sense of certainty and a consistent policy. It was a coalition of small business owners and 12 states that challenged the legality of the Trump tariffs before the US Court of International Trade. 'We brought this case because the Constitution doesn't give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. 'We're very confident in our case,' said Jeffrey Schwab, a senior counselor at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the small business owners who filed suit. 'The Trump administration is asserting a vast unilateral authority that is not supported in the law.' As for the uncertainty abroad, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued Thursday night that trade negotiations with international partners haven't been affected. 'They are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends,' he told Fox News. 'We've seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning.' But some US trading partners tread cautiously in their response. 'We will study this ruling of the US Federal Courts on reciprocal tariffs closely and note that they may be subject to further legal processes through the courts,' said Australia's trade minister Don Farrell, who was careful not to get ahead of ongoing judicial review. 'You will have to bear with us,' said a spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs when questioned about the court ruling. India remains in intensive discussions with the Trump administration on a trade deal. Still, the leader of one nation that has borne the brunt of Trump's trade agenda was more receptive. 'The government welcomes yesterday's decision,' Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, who held a stiffly cordial meeting with Trump earlier this month, told his country's parliament, calling the tariffs 'unlawful as well as unjustified.'
CBS News
28-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Court strikes down Trump's tariffs, ruling them illegal
A federal court on Wednesday froze many of the large-scale tariffs imposed by President Trump on virtually every foreign nation, ruling the levies exceed the president's legal authority. The ruling — issued by a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade — focused on the sweeping 10% tariffs the president assessed on virtually every U.S. trading partner last month, with higher tariffs threatened for dozens of countries. The court said the economic emergency powers law cited by Mr. Trump during his April rollout of the global tariffs — dubbed "Liberation Day" — didn't give him the power to impose tariffs. The judges also said it would be unconstitutional for a law to give the president blanket authority to set tariffs. CBS News has reached out to the White House for comment. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Yahoo
Court of Appeals denies Oxford High School shooter's attempt to appeal life sentence
The Michigan Court of Appeals has denied Ethan Crumbley's request to appeal his sentencing, upholding his life sentence without the possibility of parole. The decision was made by a three-judge panel on Tuesday, May 6. The court cited a "lack of merit in the grounds presented" and also rejected Crumbley's motion to remand the case, which sought to have it sent back to a lower court for further review. Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the November 2021 Oxford school shooting, pleaded guilty to all charges in 2022. In December 2024, an Oakland County judge denied his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea and reconsider his sentence. More: James Crumbley returns to court: I deserve a new trial, too After the May 6 decision, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald issued a statement supporting the ruling and highlighting the severity of the crimes committed by Crumbley. 'This ruling, first and foremost, reaffirms basic truths: On November 30, 2021, the shooter murdered Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana, and Justin Shilling, he wounded seven others, and he terrorized an entire community," McDonald said. "The shooter had his day in court. A judge weighed the severity of his crimes and rendered a fair sentence." She also pointed out that the tragedy could have been prevented, noting that both Crumbley and his parents had multiple opportunities to stop the shooting. 'As Judge Kwame Rowe said at sentencing, the shooter had multiple opportunities to make different decisions. He did not,' McDonald added. 'As a society, we must start treating gun violence as the public health crisis that it is.' Attorneys for Crumbley could not immediately be reached. Nour Rahal is a trending and breaking news reporter. Email her: nrahal@ Follow her on Twitter @nrahal1. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Appeals court rejects resentencing request from Oxford High shooter
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Yahoo
Kansas courts engage college students with live hearings
PITTSBURG, Kan. — The Kansas Judicial System brings the court to the people—to show how the system works. A three-judge panel from the Kansas Court of Appeals heard two cases this morning—at Pittsburg State's McCray Hall. The appellate court is a traveling court—but they usually hear cases in county courthouses. Kansas authorities poked fun at owner of crashed car, stolen guns… saying 'Heyyy…' Southeast Kansas museum teams with PSU for digital growth Southeast Kansas educators tap into Library of Congress resources Pittsburg man arrested in weekend shooting investigation Kansas firefighters train for safety and leadership in Girard After the two hearings—Judges answered questions from students. This is part of an effort by the court to build a better relationship with college and university students—along with the public. Chief Judge Sarah Warner—a Pittsburg native—says it could be a key part of inspiring the next generation. 'To be able to have these conversations with students who are interested in the judicial system, who are engaged with it, who perhaps are thinking about going to law school, what a wonderful way to spend the day,' said Chief Judge Sarah Warner, Kan. Court of Appeals At the same time—other three-judge panels heard cases at Emporia State University, Fort Hays State University and Johnson County Community College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
