Latest news with #U.S.CourtofAppeals
Mint
3 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
Where the trade court's tariff decision went wrong
President Donald Trump announces tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, April 2. During a national crisis, an advocate of tariffs testified before Congress that 'reciprocal trade agreements" push foreign nations to stop erecting 'excessive economic barriers to trade." Who said this? President Trump? Sen. Reed Smoot or Rep. Willis Hawley? It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's secretary of state, Cordell Hull, explaining in 1940 how reciprocal tariffs could reverse unfair trade practices targeting the U.S. Mr. Trump's policy of using reciprocal tariffs to advance U.S. interests isn't a new or radical idea, and it's a necessary one. The U.S. Court of International Trade was wrong to rule on Wednesday that the administration had exceeded its authority in imposing these tariffs. The ruling overlooked history, statute, precedent and national interest. It was a misreading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and a misinterpretation of America's bipartisan tradition of using trade policy to defend national economic resilience. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed the trade court's ruling while it considers an appeal. In a separate case, a district judge in Washington issued an injunction against the tariffs, although he stayed his own order. The issue requires resolution only the Supreme Court can deliver. Americans should hope the justices side with Mr. Trump. In its May 28 decision, V.O.S. Selections v. U.S., the trade court held that IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose 'unbounded" tariffs. The opinion misses the mark on legal and historical fronts. It substitutes policy skepticism for statutory interpretation, undermining legitimate executive authority during declared national emergencies. The trade court's reading of IEEPA contradicts the statute's text and history. IEEPA's independent emergency authority allows the president to regulate, prevent or prohibit the importation of property in which foreign countries or nationals have an interest. The language mirrors that of the earlier Trading with the Enemy Act, which President Richard Nixon used to impose a universal 10% tariff in 1971. The courts upheld Nixon's use of that power in U.S. v. Yoshida International (1975), concluding that tariffs were a sensible approach to regulating imports during a declared emergency. Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977 with language directly drawn from the Trading with the Enemy Act. The trade court's description of the tariffs as 'unbounded" also contradicts Mr. Trump's painstakingly specific April 2 executive order, which imposes precise duties, product exemptions and country-specific rates. I should know: I helped coordinate their implementation. Further, the court errs in implicitly inviting itself to review the sufficiency of the president's emergency declaration. IEEPA requires only that the president declare a national emergency 'to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat" arising outside the U.S., which is exactly what the executive order does. Trade deficits can qualify as emergencies. In the Trade Act of 1974, Congress recognized that 'large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits could justify swift presidential action, including tariffs and quotas. This act's unique procedures didn't preclude similar IEEPA authorities addressing identical threats. Second-guessing presidential responses to emergencies defies precedent. In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of President Jimmy Carter's hostage crisis response, intact to this day, which froze Iranian property in the U.S. Courts have long held that the political branches—not judges—determine how to deal with foreign economic threats that rise to emergency levels. Further, in Field v. Clark (1892), the justices held that 'it is often desirable, if not essential . . . to invest the President with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations." While IEEPA gives the president significant latitude, Congress can terminate a national emergency by joint resolution. That Congress hasn't thwarted Mr. Trump's tariffs counsels restraint in questioning his decision. The trade court evidently yearns to restore misguided economic orthodoxy. But frictionless global trade remains a mirage. Even John Maynard Keynes, hardly an economic nationalist, cautioned against the utopian allure of borderless commerce: 'Let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national." The pursuit of a perfectly undistorted global market ignores American history and legal tradition. Hull's reciprocal-tariff program of the 1930s—the foundation of U.S. multilateral trade—was premised on the imposition of duties on imports from countries that refused to lower theirs. Hull understood that economic resets require leverage. The test of judicial reasoning is whether it honors the text, structure and history of the law it interprets. The Court of International Trade fell short of that test. Mr. Bogden is a fellow at the Steamboat Institute and a former clerk for the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 days ago
- Business
- Yomiuri Shimbun
U.S. Tariffs Blocked: Can Judiciary Prevent The President from Abusing Power?
Whether the principle of checks and balances, which has been in place since the founding of the United States to prevent a president from abusing their power, still functions properly is being tested. The tariff policy of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has created a situation in which the future of U.S. democracy is in question. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the Trump administration's 'reciprocal tariffs' imposed on countries and regions around the world and other measures are illegal and invalid and ordered a permanent injunction. The ruling said the Constitution in principle gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes and other such matters. As to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the administration cited as grounds for imposing Trump's tariffs, the court argued the law does not confer on the president such unbound authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which serves as the court of second instance, suspended the enforcement of the lower court ruling, and a thorough review of the appropriateness of the tariffs will be carried out. The case will likely be brought to the Supreme Court. Although the tariffs issue will likely see a lot of twists and turns, there is no doubt that this ruling has dealt a blow to the Trump administration's signature policy. The lawsuit was filed by small and medium-sized U.S. companies and 12 states, including New York and Arizona. This shows that dissatisfaction with the tariff policy is growing not only overseas but also within the United States. Shouldn't Trump face the criticism head-on and reconsider the tariff policy? In the United States, authority over tariffs and trade is primarily vested in Congress, while certain powers are delegated to the president through various laws. The IEEPA was enacted in 1977. In cases in which there is an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States, the president can impose restrictions on imports and exports without prior examination after declaring a state of national emergency. Previously, the IEEPA has been mainly applied to economic sanctions against countries such as North Korea and Iran. The Trump administration was the first to impose tariffs under the law. The administration argues that the massive trade deficit poses a threat to national security. However, as the latest ruling shows, doubts about the validity of such an argument for the tariffs remain strong. Since its founding, the United States has thoroughly upheld the separation of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches as the foundation of democracy. This system in which the three powers keep each other in check has prevented the emergence of authoritarian rule and protected the freedom and rights of the people. However, with both the House of Representatives and the Senate being controlled by the Republican Party, which has become increasingly Trump's party, the checks and balances are not functioning as they should. Amid growing concerns over Trump abusing his power, the ruling demonstrates that the judiciary can serve as a check on that power to a certain degree. If the court ultimately rules that the reciprocal tariffs are illegal, they will lose their efficacy. This could also influence the negotiation strategies of other countries. The Japanese government must carefully analyze the details of the ruling and future developments. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 31, 2025)
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Dogecoin Dives 9%; Cardano's ADA, SOL Slump 6% as Renewed Tariff Fears Jolt Markets
Dogecoin DOGE nosedived 9%, while Cardano's ADA ADA and Solana's SOL SOL each fell 6% in the past 24 hours as Trump's reinstated tariffs reignited trade tensions. A swift legal reversal saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issue a temporary stay on Wednesday's lower court ruling that had struck down the tariffs, allowing them to remain in place while the government appeals. The tariffs, announced on April 2 and dubbed 'Liberation Day' duties by Trump, target nearly all U.S. trading partners and were imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Bitcoin BTC slid below $106,000 while ether ETH lost the $2,700 mark amid the renewed uncertainty. The broad-based CoinDesk 20 (CD20), a liquid index tracking the largest tokens by market capitalization, fell 4%. 'The price of Bitcoin fell after Trump's tariffs were reinstated by an appeals court, while U.S. GDP figures showed the economy shrank in the first quarter,' said Nick Ruck, director at LVRG Research, in a Telegram message. 'Gold surged higher as jobless claims increased and corporate profits fell. Although the Fed continues to see inflation as a threat, we're optimistic that Bitcoin will rebound as investors look for long-term value holds during volatile market fluctuations,' Ruck added. Market sentiment appeared cautious, with the total crypto market capitalization flat at $3.42 trillion. 'Cryptocurrencies prefer not to notice positive stock market movements as they are related to tariffs and company reports, not money supply,' noted Alex Kuptsikevich, chief market analyst at FxPro, in an email to CoinDesk. 'Bitcoin retreated from the trading range's upper boundary at $110k to its lower boundary at $107K. This rest at previous highs effectively removes the local overheating of the market.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump orbit rewarded in year since criminal conviction
It's been one year since President Trump was found guilty on all counts of falsifying business records to keep alleged affairs secret during his 2016 campaign, enshrining him in history as the first former commander in chief to be convicted of a felony. Now back in the White House, his world looks very different — and those who remained by his side have reaped the benefits. Trump's defense attorneys are now serving at the Justice Department's highest levels. His allies who showed up to the trial have been rewarded with Cabinet posts and even the vice presidency. Trump is also continuing to fight his legal woes, with two major appeals court battles set for June. Here's where everything stands one year later. After retaking the White House, many of Trump's personal defense attorneys filled top Justice Department positions. Todd Blanche, Trump's lead counsel at the hush money trial, serves as deputy attorney general. His right-hand man, Emil Bove, now works as Blanche's deputy. The duo has made aggressive moves, including the controversial dismissal of New York City Mayor Eric Adams's (D) corruption case. Bove's tenure at the department may be quickly coming to a close, however. This week, Trump said he was nominating Bove to a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. D. John Sauer, who successfully argued Trump's presidential immunity claims before the Supreme Court that stymied several of his criminal cases, now spearheads the administration's efforts at the high court as solicitor general. Sauer's office has brought more than a dozen emergency applications to the justices seeking to lift lower court injunctions blocking Trump's policies. Meanwhile, Harmeet Dhillon, who supported Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and represented him in a 14th Amendment challenge to his 2024 candidacy, oversees the Justice Department's civil rights division. She has reshaped the division's priorities, causing an exodus of lawyers. And Alina Habba came to the White House to serve as counselor to the president. Habba, known for her television appearances attacking the cases against Trump, worked on Trump's civil fraud prosecution brought by the New York attorney general and the defamation cases brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. In March, Trump named Habba as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. In that role, she has brought criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) over a scuffle at a Newark immigration facility. But not all lawyers entered the administration. Steve Sadow, Trump's lead counsel in his Georgia criminal case concerning his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, had no interest. Sadow is a longtime Atlanta-based defense attorney who has represented several other prominent clients, such as Usher and Rick Ross. 'I have never been a prosecutor and never will be. It just not in my makeup,' Sadow said in November after Trump's election victory. Trump's criminal trial became a critical stop for his strongest GOP allies and those vying to join his future administration — and showing up paid off. Vice President Vance, then a Republican senator from Ohio, joined Trump's courtroom entourage on the first day of testimony from fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen. He questioned Cohen's credibility as a witness on social media and, outside the courthouse, accused the Manhattan prosecutors trying the case of being 'Democratic political operatives.' Then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), who called the proceeding a 'scam trial' outside the courthouse, is now Interior secretary. On Thursday, Trump named Paul Ingrassia, who attended the trial and liveposted a flood of pro-Trump content, to lead the office charged with prosecuting misconduct in the federal workforce. And Susie Wiles, who was a senior adviser to Trump's presidential campaign, attended parts of the trial and was later named his White House chief of staff. Some Republican allies initially rewarded have ultimately seen those rewards falter. Trump initially named ex-Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for attorney general, but Gaetz withdrew after it became clear he would not earn enough support in Congress. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) was tapped as ambassador to the United Nations, but Trump later asked her to withdraw over fear of losing her congressional seat. And former presidential candidate-turned-Trump-surrogate Vivek Ramaswamy was set to join the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) cost-cutting mission alongside billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk but departed to run for governor of Ohio. Trump's personal legal woes fell into the background after he became president, but some of his biggest cases are returning to the limelight. On June 11, Trump's hush money conviction heads to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit for oral arguments. The president is attempting to move his case out of New York state court — where Trump has long complained he isn't being treated fairly — and into federal court. If successful, the move would provide Trump a pathway to assert immunity and other defenses that could see his 34-count felony conviction tossed. Sullivan & Cromwell now helms the president's defense after many of his mainstay lawyers moved into the Justice Department. The Justice Department is now going to bat for Trump, filing a friend-of-the-court brief backing the president's position. 'To hold otherwise would risk incentivizing state and local prosecutors to manipulate trial dates and the timing of evidentiary submissions in the most high-profile of cases,' the Justice Department wrote in its brief. Trump's attorneys will face off against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's (D) office, which brought the hush money prosecution. The office argues Trump's bid to move courts is dead now that he's been sentenced. Nearly two weeks later, the same court on June 24 will hear Trump's appeal of a jury's verdict ordering him to pay $83.3 million to Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. The Justice Department is attempting to come to Trump's rescue in that case, too. In April, the department again asked to substitute the government as the defendant in Carroll's lawsuit. It had done so at the onset of the case before abandoning the effort in 2023, during the Biden administration. 'I don't need to tell you that Robbie and I are ready for the fight, do I?' Carroll wrote on Substack last month, referencing her attorney, Robbie Kaplan. The trial was the second time a jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll. He also was ordered to hand over $5 million in her separate lawsuit, a verdict the 2nd Circuit upheld in December. And in the state courts in New York, Trump awaits an appeals panel's decision in its review of the state's civil fraud case against him, which ended in a nearly $500 million judgment against him and his business. The panel heard arguments in September and seemed wary of the massive financial penalty. A decision could come at any time. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Star
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Star
U.S. Supreme Court allows Trump administration ending humanitarian parole for 500,000-plus migrants
NEW YORK, May 30 (Xinhua) - U.S. Supreme Court on Friday lifted a federal district court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the Trump administration to revoke temporary legal status for about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. The move has cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, and pushed the total number of people who could be exposed to deportation to nearly one million, local media reported Friday. To address the growing number of migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, the Biden administration created a parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans in late 2022 and early 2023, authorizing them to work in the United States for two years after going through certain process. The program protected roughly 532,000 people from the risk of deportation. But soon after beginning his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to terminate all parole programs. Acting on the executive order, Noem in March announced ending the parole program, with any grants of parole still in effect expiring by April 24. A federal district court judge in Massachusetts agreed to halt Noem's blanket revocation of migrants' temporary legal status when a group of 23 individuals including several parolees and a nonprofit organization challenged Noem's termination of the program. The Trump administration first appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, which declined to pause the district court's order pending appeal; and then sought the Supreme Court's intervention.
