Latest news with #TradingwiththeEnemyActof1917
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Trump's tariffs: Turfed out but raring to return
In a move that sets back US President Donald Trump's idiosyncratic plan to make America 'great again,' but could possibly slow down or arrest America's descent as a democracy, a court has ruled against the 'reciprocal' tariffs announced by him on 2 April, dubbed 'Liberation Day.' The power to levy such tariffs is held by the US Congress rather than its president, ruled the court, giving the White House 10 days to reverse import duties announced under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). Also Read: Democracy could be the greatest casualty of Trump's war While this law grants the president power to 'regulate' imports, it does not mention 'tariffs.' Given the significance of these tariff measures and their 'unbounded' nature, the court held as invalid the assumed delegation of Congress authority to the White House under that law. In other words, the tariff orders had exceeded his authority. US stock market index futures jumped after the ruling, but it is premature to conclude that Trump's tariff tantrums are behind us. This is so for three reasons. One, as the US Court of International Trade's order is being appealed by the administration, it could be overturned either by a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court. Two, Trump's team might look for another statute to back his trade barriers. And, three, he could try pressuring lawmakers to enact his agenda and thereby secure it from judicial interdiction. Also Read: The many dangers that democracy confronts today Although aimed at external threats, the IEEPA adopted in 1977 was partly designed to curb and specify the emergency powers granted to the US president under prior laws like its Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which had been used by presidents to assume sweeping authority. In 1973, a Senate investigation had found various emergencies declared since 1933 still in force, which led to legislative efforts to constrain the White House. The IEEPA has hitherto been used to slam hostile countries with sanctions and confiscate foreign assets. Trump has been the first US leader to use this law to erect steep trade barriers against countries alleged to have put the country at threat by selling it more goods than buying US wares. Of the three judges who unanimously ruled against tariffs under the IEEPA, one had been appointed by Trump himself, a second by Obama and the senior-most by Reagan. It is difficult to pin their opinion on any partisan bias. The court also struck down tariffs imposed on countries for their alleged role in America's opioid crisis, citing a weak link between this action and its ability to deal with this declared emergency, but did not invalidate America's 25% duty on steel, aluminium, automobiles and auto parts levied under the US Trade Expansion Act. Under this law, tariffs can be imposed if the commerce secretary determines that specified imports threaten national security. Also Read: A trade arrangement that leaves out the US could trump Trump's tariffs It is conceivable that the Trump administration will seek to invoke such laws to re-impose levies should its appeal be rejected. However, it might be difficult to argue that garments from Asia pose a threat while clothes from Mexico do not. The win-win economic logic of trade should also make it hard to cast imports from specific countries as perilous, although political postures that feed on economic anxieties can colour popular views of what is good or bad for a country. Whichever way the legal battle goes, this week's court order on tariffs can be taken as a win for due process, even if uncertainty and volatility persist. Global growth is still at risk. Yet, at least on paper, an institutional commitment to the rule of law could relieve the world.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal court says Trump doesn't have the power to impose tariffs unilaterally
A federal court has determined that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, dealing a sweeping blow to the president's main weapon in his ongoing global trade war. A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade found the tariffs were unlawful and permanently vacated them. Since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on more than 50 countries in April, his administration has faced half a dozen lawsuits challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress. MORE: Lawyer calls Trump tariffs 'unlawful' as they face 1st test against small businesses The Court of International Trade issued its ruling in a case brought by a group of five small businesses who argued that Trump's tariffs are an "unprecedented power grab." Lawyers for the small businesses alleged that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- which Trump invoked to impose the tariffs -- does not give the president the right to issue "across-the-board worldwide tariffs," and that Trump's justification for the tariffs was invalid. "His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination," the lawsuit said. "Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency." During a hearing earlier this month, a group of three judges -- who were appointed by presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan -- pushed a lawyer for the small businesses to provide a legal basis to override the tariffs. While a different court in the 1970s determined that the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 -- the law that preceded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- gave the president the right to impose tariffs, no court has weighed whether the president can impose tariffs unilaterally under the IEEPA. During a May 13 hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, argued that Trump's purported emergency to justify the tariffs is far short of what is required under the law. "I'm asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike; you're asking me, well, where's the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?" Schwab argued. "I'm saying it's a wild pitch and it's on the other side of the batter and hits the backstop, so we don't need to debate that." The ruling marks the first time a federal court has issued a ruling on the legality of Trump's tariffs. In May, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, but opted to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. Federal court says Trump doesn't have the power to impose tariffs unilaterally originally appeared on
