Latest news with #NewCivilLibertiesAlliance
CNN
29-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
Trump tariffs decision rests on arguments conservatives repeatedly used against Biden
The blockbuster federal court ruling that halts President Donald Trump from imposing some of his most sweeping tariffs rests in part on a legal theory that conservative groups repeatedly used at the Supreme Court to block former President Joe Biden's agenda. A push by the majority-conservative Supreme Court to use what's known as the 'major questions doctrine' to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval may play a role when the case inevitably works its way up to the high court. The Trump administration is already pledging to bring an emergency appeal to the justices in coming days. The US Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump from relying on a 1977 law dealing with economic emergencies to impose sweeping duties on much of the world. It did so in part by noting separation-of-powers theories the Supreme Court has used to shut down some of Biden's policies, such as his efforts to forgive student loans, curb power plant emissions and extend a moratorium on evictions at the tail end of the pandemic. 'There's a broader movement in this direction,' said Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian-leaning law group that is active at the Supreme Court and that sued Trump over the tariffs in a separate case. 'The general trend is that the court is looking closely at whether Congress has delegated certain power to the executive branch – agencies and presidents,' Morris said. 'That trend weighs against the president in this case.' In 2023, the Supreme Court relied on what's known as the major questions doctrine to block Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. That doctrine requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when it intends to authorize a president to take actions of 'economic or political significance.' In other words, if Congress doesn't explicitly include language in a law giving the president power to act in some way, that action may be legally suspect. The Supreme Court in 2022 curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, a major defeat for Biden that also relied heavily on the major questions doctrine. In both cases, the policies were challenged by Republican attorneys general in conservative states. The trade court's opinion also flicked at what's known as the 'nondelegation doctrine,' or the idea that Congress can't delegate its power to federal agencies. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case it will likely decide in June that touches on that same doctrine. That appeal involves the multibillion-dollar Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to offset the cost of phone and internet service for low-income Americans. A conservative 'consumer awareness group' is challenging that fund, arguing it amounts to a tax levied by the Federal Communications Commission. It is Congress that holds the power to tax, not the executive branch. The federal trade court nodded to both theories in its opinion Wednesday as 'tools' that could be used to resolve the case. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,' the court wrote. 'Regardless of whether the court views the president's actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation' of the law 'that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' Trump's lawyers urged an appeals court to pause the trade court ruling and threatened to take the matter to the Supreme Court. The administration said the ruling 'threatens to unwind months of foreign-policy decision-making and sensitive diplomatic negotiations, at the expense of the nation's economic well-being and national security.' During Trump's first administration, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals over Trump's 25% tariffs on foreign steel. But those tariffs were levied under a different legal authority.
Reuters
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US appeals court questions 97-year-old judge's challenge to her suspension
WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court panel expressed skepticism on Thursday that 97-year-old U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman should be able to revive her lawsuit challenging her suspension from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sharply questioned Newman's lawyer over her claims that the Federal Circuit violated the U.S. Constitution by suspending her for failing to cooperate with an investigation into her fitness to serve on the court. However, the judges also probed the Federal Circuit's decision not to move the investigation to another appeals court and questioned the constitutionality of part of the law underlying the suspension. Newman is the oldest U.S. federal judge not to have taken a form of semi-retirement known as senior status. Appointed to the Federal Circuit by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, Newman is a respected figure in patent law and a prominent dissenter at the court, which frequently rules on high-stakes intellectual property cases involving major companies. The Federal Circuit's chief judge, Kimberly Moore, said in orders made public in 2023 that Newman had shown signs of serious cognitive and physical impairment. The circuit's Judicial Council, consisting of the court's active judges, suspended Newman later that year after finding that she refused to cooperate with an investigation into her fitness. Newman has maintained that she is fit to serve and sued the council over her suspension. The D.C. Circuit heard Newman's appeal on Thursday after a Washington district court dismissed her lawsuit last year. Newman's attorney Greg Dolin of the New Civil Liberties Alliance told a three-judge panel that the suspension, which can be renewed annually, amounted to an unconstitutional impeachment that only Congress could legally perform. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett said it was an "extraordinary proposition" that impeachment was the only way for courts to remove judges from service. She outlined a hypothetical situation as an example. "They're in the hospital going in and out of consciousness, and your argument is 'wow, let's impeach them,'" Millett said. U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard echoed Millett, citing her personal experience with a relative with dementia. "Is there nobody in the system who can take steps against the conscious, intelligent person whose judgment is in trouble?," Pillard said. The case is Newman v. Moore, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 24-5173. For Newman: Greg Dolin of the New Civil Liberties Alliance For the Federal Circuit judicial council: Melissa Patterson of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US appeals judge, 96, suspended in rare clash over fitness US appeals court judge sues to halt competency probe US judge, 97, loses lawsuit seeking reinstatement Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington
CNN
24-04-2025
- Business
- CNN
Twelve states sue the Trump administration over ‘tax hikes' through tariffs
Twelve states sued the Trump administration Wednesday for 'illegally imposing' tax hikes on Americans through tariffs. Trump imposed the tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the authority to enact those powers in response to unusual and extraordinary threats. The lawsuit seeks a court order to halt the tariffs under IEEPA, saying Trump does not have the authority he claims he does. 'In the nearly five decades since IEEPA was enacted, no other President has imposed tariffs based on the existence of any national emergency, despite global anti-narcotics campaigns spearheaded by the United States and longstanding trade deficits,' the lawsuit argued. While Congress passed IEEPA, 'Congress never intended it to be used for tariffs,' the suit reads. In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai called the legal action a 'witch hunt' and said: 'The Trump Administration remains committed to using its full legal authority to confront the distinct national emergencies our country is currently facing—both the scourge of illegal migration and fentanyl flows across our border and the exploding annual US goods trade deficit.' The coalition of states joins other groups that have sued the Trump administration on tariffs. A group of small US businesses filed a lawsuit last week over the administration's authority to impose tariffs, and New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a civil rights group, filed a complaint on similar grounds earlier in April. In response to the small business lawsuit, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields previously said that trade deficits with other countries constitute a 'national emergency.' The lawsuit is filed by the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont. 'Donald Trump promised that he would lower prices and ease the cost of living, but these illegal tariffs will have the exact opposite effect on American families. His tariffs are unlawful and if not stopped, they will lead to more inflation, unemployment, and economic damage,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a press release. The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States Court of International Trade, also seeks a court order to halt the impending worldwide reciprocal tariffs that were paused earlier in April. The coalition also argued that Trump has violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Last week, California announced its own lawsuit against the Trump administration, also arguing the Trump administration lacked the authority to impose the tariffs and claiming it has caused 'irreparable harm to California, its Governor, and its residents.' Matthew Kaufman contributed to this report.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Twelve states sue the Trump administration over ‘tax hikes' through tariffs
Twelve states sued the Trump administration Wednesday for 'illegally imposing' tax hikes on Americans through tariffs. Trump imposed the tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the authority to enact those powers in response to unusual and extraordinary threats. The lawsuit seeks a court order to halt the tariffs under IEEPA, saying Trump does not have the authority he claims he does. 'In the nearly five decades since IEEPA was enacted, no other President has imposed tariffs based on the existence of any national emergency, despite global anti-narcotics campaigns spearheaded by the United States and longstanding trade deficits,' the lawsuit argued. While Congress passed IEEPA, 'Congress never intended it to be used for tariffs,' the suit reads. The coalition of states joins other groups that have sued the Trump administration on tariffs. A group of small US businesses filed a lawsuit last week over the administration's authority to impose tariffs, and New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a civil rights group, filed a complaint on similar grounds earlier in April. In response to the small business lawsuit, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields previously said that trade deficits with other countries constitute a 'national emergency.' The lawsuit is filed by the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont. 'Donald Trump promised that he would lower prices and ease the cost of living, but these illegal tariffs will have the exact opposite effect on American families. His tariffs are unlawful and if not stopped, they will lead to more inflation, unemployment, and economic damage,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a press release. The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States Court of International Trade, also seeks a court order to halt the impending worldwide reciprocal tariffs that were paused earlier in April. The coalition also argued that Trump has violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Last week, California announced its own lawsuit against the Trump administration, also arguing the Trump administration lacked the authority to impose the tariffs and claiming it has caused 'irreparable harm to California, its Governor, and its residents.' CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Matthew Kaufman contributed to this report.
CNN
23-04-2025
- Business
- CNN
Twelve states sue the Trump administration over ‘tax hikes' through tariffs
Twelve states sued the Trump administration Wednesday for 'illegally imposing' tax hikes on Americans through tariffs. Trump imposed the tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the authority to enact those powers in response to unusual and extraordinary threats. The lawsuit seeks a court order to halt the tariffs under IEEPA, saying Trump does not have the authority he claims he does. 'In the nearly five decades since IEEPA was enacted, no other President has imposed tariffs based on the existence of any national emergency, despite global anti-narcotics campaigns spearheaded by the United States and longstanding trade deficits,' the lawsuit argued. While Congress passed IEEPA, 'Congress never intended it to be used for tariffs,' the suit reads. The coalition of states joins other groups that have sued the Trump administration on tariffs. A group of small US businesses filed a lawsuit last week over the administration's authority to impose tariffs, and New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a civil rights group, filed a complaint on similar grounds earlier in April. In response to the small business lawsuit, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields previously said that trade deficits with other countries constitute a 'national emergency.' The lawsuit is filed by the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont. 'Donald Trump promised that he would lower prices and ease the cost of living, but these illegal tariffs will have the exact opposite effect on American families. His tariffs are unlawful and if not stopped, they will lead to more inflation, unemployment, and economic damage,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a press release. The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States Court of International Trade, also seeks a court order to halt the impending worldwide reciprocal tariffs that were paused earlier in April. The coalition also argued that Trump has violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Last week, California announced its own lawsuit against the Trump administration, also arguing the Trump administration lacked the authority to impose the tariffs and claiming it has caused 'irreparable harm to California, its Governor, and its residents.' CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Matthew Kaufman contributed to this report.
