Latest news with #Shumate
The Herald Scotland
01-08-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
US court to review Trump's power to impose tariffs
In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on July 31. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." During the July 31 arguments, Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other U.S. laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
New York Post
31-07-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Judges skeptical of Trump using emergency powers for tariff spree
WASHINGTON — A panel of appeals court judges bombarded a Trump administration attorney Thursday with pointed questions about the president's use of emergency powers to levy reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries — hours before 'Liberation Day' duties were set to take effect. The 11-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put their most searching inquiries to Assistant US Attorney General Brett Shumate. 'The negative balance of goods is decades and decades old,' one jurist said before asking how the trade deficit could be considered a national emergency given its longstanding nature. Shumate argued that the gap between US imports and exports had widened recently and further contended that Congress has given presidents broad leeway to wield tariffs. He cited a 1975 appeals court decision that permitted former President Richard Nixon to slap a 10% charge on imported merchandise to combat inflation four years earlier. 4 The Trump administration argued that President Trump has the authority to slap tariffs against foreign countries unilaterally. REUTERS 4 The court hearing comes before President Trump's Aug.1 deadline for countries to make deals. Bloomberg via Getty Images The hearing on Thursday dealt with the Trump administration's challenge to a May 28 decision by the US Court of International Trade quashing most of the president's tariffs. The appellate court promptly paused that decision to give time for it to hear the White House case. At issue is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The act gives presidents sweeping powers to regulate international financial transactions and trade, including by imposing economic sanctions, but has never been used to tax imports. 'IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them,' a judge griped at one point. Shumate admitted that 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but insisted Trump's interpretation did not violate the law. 4 The White House has signaled that tariff negotiations with other countries will go down to the wire ahead of the Aug. 1 deadline. A coalition of 12 blue states and five small businesses brought the case, hoping to get the president's tariff regime thrown out. Neal Katyal, representing the businesses, warned of 'staggering consequences' should the fees be allowed to go ahead. 'You just heard an argument … that our federal courts are powerless, that the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency,' chided Katyal, a former solicitor general under Barack Obama. Heading into the court hearing, Trump stressed the high stakes and warned that if the courts side against him, it could be a death knell to his trade agenda. '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!' he dramatically warned on Truth Social. 4 President Trump has made overhauling US trade relations a key pillar of his second term agenda. Bloomberg via Getty Images It is unclear when the appellate court will rule on the case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. Regardless of the outcome, the matter is likely to go to the Supreme Court. Since unveiling a slate of customized tariff rates April 2, Trump has imposed a blanket 10% duty on all imports while negotiating framework deals with some of America's biggest trading partners. Those include the European Union, United Kingdom, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Cambodia and Thailand.
The Hill
31-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Appeals court scrutinizes Trump's emergency tariffs as deadline looms
An appeals court on Thursday scrutinized President Trump's assertion that emergency powers justify his worldwide tariffs. Thursday's high-stakes oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit came one day ahead of Trump's deadline for dozens of countries to strike trade deals or face higher 'reciprocal' duties. To justify the sweeping moves, Trump cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law authorizing the president to issue certain economic sanctions in an emergency to counter an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' 'It's just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates,' said Judge Timothy Dyk. 'It's really kind of asking for an extraordinary change to the whole approach,' continued Dyk, an appointee of former President Clinton. Presidents have invoked other statutes to impose tariffs, but Trump in February became the first president to attempt to do so by invoking the emergency law. 'Why is that?' pressed Judge Jimmie Reyna, an appointee of former President Obama. 'Has there been no national emergency?' The Justice Department argues that IEEPA has for decades been among the 'most powerful tools' a president can use to protect national security, foreign policy and the economy. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division, said Congress has long given presidents 'broad discretion' to deal with national emergencies and that IEEPA is a tool that lets Trump to put pressure on trading partners. 'Congress wanted to provide broad and flexible authority in the context of emergencies, and I think you have to read the phrase 'regulate importation' in the context of an extraordinary delegation of power to the President that can be checked by Congress in specific cases,' Shumate said, pointing to specific language also used by President Nixon to impose tariffs in 1971. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, an appointee of the second former President Bush, asked if it amounts to a 'bargaining chip.' 'Exactly,' Shumate replied. Trump first used IEEPA in February to announce levies on Canada, China and Mexico — pointing to the fentanyl crisis as the emergency — but, in April, the president expanded to a 10 percent global baseline tariff, with higher rates for some countries. The expansion, deemed 'Liberation Day' by Trump, was attributed to an emergency over trade deficits. The lawsuit was brought by 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses. The administration appealed after the U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated the levies, and the Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until deciding the case. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, began his argument with a warning that the government believes Trump can do 'whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants,' so long as he declares a national emergency. The tariffs amount to a 'breathtaking claim to power' not asserted by any president in 200 years, and one with 'staggering' consequences, Katyal said. The plaintiffs argue IEEPA can't be read to endorse tariffs. But even if that reading is possible, the plaintiffs point to a series of decisions from the Supreme Court's conservative justices holding that the executive branch must have clear congressional authorization to carry out matters of significant economic and political significance. 'This is not an elephant in a mouse hole,' said Katyal, invoking a phrase the justices often use to explain the principle, known as the major questions doctrine. 'This is a galaxy in a keyhole,' he continued. Though Katyal, a high-profile Supreme Court advocate who served as solicitor general under former President Obama, garnered sympathy with his concerns, several judges took issue with the plaintiffs' position that trade deficits aren't a valid emergency because they have existed for decades. Those judges suggested the challengers were sidestepping how Trump's tariff order additionally points to recent consequences of the deficits, like a hollowed-out U.S. manufacturing base and undermined critical supply chains. Moore, the chief judge, at one point chastised the states' attorney for claiming Trump had only talked about it in a single sentence. 'I will walk it back,' Benjamin Gutman, Oregon's solicitor general, conceded. The arguments come on the eve of the cutoff Trump established for nearly 200 countries to strike a deal to avoid higher rates on goods. Trump reached agreements with South Korea and the European Union this week setting tariffs at 15 percent, and last week, he reached similar deals with Japan and the Philippines. Trump on Thursday announced Mexico's tariffs would be extended at current rates for another 90 days, while other countries have until Aug. 1 to make a deal with the president or face the heavier rates. Nearly 100 people, mostly attorneys, filled the second-floor courtroom Thursday where 11 of the Federal Circuit's 12 active judges weighed Trump's tariffs. Judge Pauline Newman, the nation's oldest federal judge at 98, did not participate; she was suspended by her fellow judges from hearing new cases over concerns about her mental fitness, which she has challenged in court. However, she was seated in the public gallery for the arguments along the aisle in the second row. Ahead of the hearing, Trump on Truth Social wished his lawyers 'good luck in America's big case.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
31-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Judges grill Trump over use of emergency powers for 'reciprocal tariffs'
US appeals court judges sharply questioned on Thursday whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years." The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all US trading partners - mark the first test before a US appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders. The countries have denied that claim. Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other US laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
Miami Herald
19-07-2025
- Sport
- Miami Herald
HBCU volleyball team wins tournament in Africa
Two standout freshmen fromHampton University volleyball, Taylor Shumate and Morgan Warren, represented Team HBCU in an international tournament held in Gaborone, Botswana. The event, known as the Ditsala International Cup, ran from May 29 to June 2 and featured teams from across the globe. Representing Team HBCU with Pride Shumate, from Austin, Texas, and Warren, from Durham, North Carolina, were selected to join a handpicked group of HBCU student-athletes. Competing against collegiate teams from the United States and national teams from Southern Africa, Team HBCU went undefeated. The squad claimed the tournament championship by defeating a strong team sponsored by Bring It Promotions (BIP). Shumate described the experience as amazing. She said that going undefeated in an international tournament was a great feeling and encouraged other HBCU volleyball players to take advantage of opportunities like this. A Journey Beyond Competition The tournament was just one part of a larger, transformative journey. After competing, the players traveled to Francistown and Kasane, where they hosted youth volleyball clinics and led coaching workshops. The experience allowed them to give back to the community while growing as global ambassadors. In addition to volleyball outreach, the student-athletes enjoyed several cultural experiences. These included wildlife safaris at Mokolodi Game Reserve and Khama Rhino Sanctuary, as well as a boat safari on the Chobe River. The trip also took them to Zambia and Zimbabwe, where they visited Victoria Falls, one of the world's most iconic natural wonders. Sports Diplomacy in Action Another highlight of the trip was a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Botswana, where the players met with diplomats and learned about sports diplomacy and international relations. Warren expressed her gratitude for the experience. She said she was truly grateful for the opportunity to represent Hampton University in such a historic moment. The journey reaffirmed her commitment to excellence both on and off the court and deepened her pride in being part of Hampton's legacy. A Win for Hampton University Volleyball This international tour not only highlighted the athletic talents of Shumate and Warren but also showcased the mission and excellence of Hampton University volleyball on a global stage. Their participation marked a significant milestone for the program and inspired a new level of pride across the Pirate Nation. The post HBCU volleyball team wins tournament in Africa appeared first on HBCU Gameday. Copyright HBCU Gameday 2012-2025
