Latest news with #U.S.CourtofInternationalTrade
Epoch Times
7 hours ago
- Business
- Epoch Times
Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over Whether to Block Trump's Tariffs
An appeals court seemed skeptical of President Donald Trump's tariffs after oral argument on July 31, as multiple judges questioned whether a decades-old law Trump invoked had provided him the authority he said it did. Oral arguments came months after the U.S. Court of International Trade held in May that Trump's tariffs were inconsistent with the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which allows presidents to regulate imports in times of emergency. Whether that regulation of imports includes tariffs was the subject of considerable debate.
Hamilton Spectator
8 hours ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump lowers expectations of trade deal with Canada, gives 90-day delay to Mexico
WASHINGTON - Donald Trump dampened expectations of a deal with Canada materializing at the last minute as his tariff deadline loomed Thursday — but the U.S. president did give a 90-day deadline delay to Mexico. In a post on social media early Thursday morning, the president said it will be very hard to make a deal with Canada after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Wednesday Ottawa intends to recognize a Palestinian state. Trump previously sent a letter to Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by Friday. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, better known as CUSMA. In a separate social media post, Trump said he spoke with Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum and agreed to extend Mexico's trade deal deadline because the 'complexities of a Deal with Mexico are somewhat different than other Nations because of both the problems, and assets, of the Border.' Trump's previous letter to Sheinbaum threatened 30 per cent tariffs. The Thursday post said the current 25 per cent fentanyl-related tariffs, as well as sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper and automobiles, will remain in place. 'Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many,' Trump said. 'We will be talking to Mexico over the next 90 Days with the goal of signing a Trade Deal somewhere within the 90 Day period of time, or longer.' While Trump continued to claim in posts on social media that tariffs are making 'America GREAT & RICH Again,' the president's main tool for realigning global trade faces a hurdle in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is hearing Thursday from businesses and states that say Trump's use of a national security statute to implement the duties is beyond his powers as president. 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today,' Trump said in a social media post. '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!' The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution reserves power over taxes and tariffs for Congress. The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs. The Trump administration's lawyer argued in the appeals court Thursday morning that there are still checks and balances on the president's powers and he has the authority to use the statute to impose duties — despite the fact that word 'tariff' is not in IEEPA. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 31, 2025.
Mint
12 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
Trump's Tariff authority is tested in court as deadline on trade deals looms
WASHINGTON—President Trump's trade agenda is entering a pivotal two-day stretch, with the administration moving to increase tariffs on imports from several nations while a federal appeals court considers the legality of his efforts. Trump in April outlined what he described as his 'Liberation Day" tariff regime, which included a global baseline tariff of 10% on imports from virtually all nations and steeper levies on nations the administration considers to be bad actors on trade. The 10% duties went into effect soon after the announcement, but Trump had paused the higher, so-called reciprocal tariffs until the end of this week to make room for negotiations on trade deals. The talks have intensified in the final days before the Aug. 1 deadline. Both elements of the Liberation Day tariffs were underpinned by a 1970s law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Typically, tariffs are imposed using targeted authority delegated to the president by Congress. Trump's team invoked the little-used emergency authority to impose the bulk of his wide-ranging second-term tariffs more quickly. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority, concluding that Ieepa didn't give him the power to impose sweeping tariffs that have sparked a global trade war. While a three-judge panel voided Trump's levies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit quickly paused that ruling to buy itself time to consider the case. The full court, with 11 judges participating, will hear arguments Thursday morning. The case, which combines challenges brought by a dozen states and a group of small businesses, is on a fast-track timeline. Whichever side loses is almost sure to seek review by the Supreme Court. The challengers have mounted a barrage of arguments, any one of which could sink Trump's efforts. Ieepa doesn't give the president power to impose tariffs at all, they say, and even if it did, they argue, it wouldn't allow the ones Trump adopted. They say that there are no extraordinary threats to the U.S. that justify invoking the law, and that his tariffs have no connection to the emergencies he claims. They also say the Constitution limits the ability of Congress to delegate any tariff authority to the president—and that no other president has ever used Ieepa the way Trump has. The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, says in response that Ieepa's text and legislative history gives the president power to regulate imports—including by imposing tariffs—and that his levies are valid and valuable bargaining chips to deal with real emergencies related to trade deficits and drug trafficking. The department also says the president's determination of what constitutes an emergency can't be second-guessed by the courts. U.S. officials have weighed their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. Meanwhile, Trump has used the threat of tariffs to notch commitments from trading partners such as Japan to invest in the U.S. The president's recent pact with the European Union followed a shift in strategy by the Europeans. EU officials in recent talks sought to contain the damage the tariffs will inflict on the bloc's companies and economy, rather than trying to negotiate them away outright. Imports from both Japan and the EU are expected to face 15% tariffs by the end of the week unless Trump further delays implementation of the levies. Other countries face even higher tariffs, such as 25% on Indian imports and 50% on Brazilian imports. Trump, in a social-media post Wednesday, said his Aug. 1 deadline 'stands strong, and will not be extended." There are mysteries surrounding some of Trump's agreements. The administration has yet to release the text of some of the pacts he and his team have discussed in public. In some cases, U.S. trading partners seem to differ from the president's views of what is in the agreements. Trump said his deal with the EU included a $600 billion investment in the U.S. European officials later said the $600 billion was based on private companies' plans for their own U.S. investments and not something the bloc controlled. If Trump wins in court, he will gain vast new powers to impose and relax taxes at will on foreign companies and individuals with U.S. connections, according to trade-law experts. If the administration loses, the picture for Trump's tariffs gets murky. The president 'could do what every president before him has done," and look to Congress to approve the deals, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, one of the groups suing the administration. Trade lawyers said countries could seek to renege on their deals—potentially prompting a new, messy, international fight. 'It's unlikely that a party is going to uphold a deal" if it can argue the deal was made improperly or under duress, said Michael Lowell, a partner at Reed Smith. 'If the Supreme Court does not uphold the authority, then the strength of those deals will be significantly weakened."
17 hours ago
- Business
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
Boston Globe
19 hours ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Now it goes on to Round Two. Advertisement On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Advertisement Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. Advertisement The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Advertisement
