Latest news with #UnitedStatesCourtofInternationalTrade
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. [Conor Friedersdorf: Striking down Trump's tariffs isn't a judicial coup] The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
a day ago
- Business
- Atlantic
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree.
USA Today
2 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Trade whiplash
Trade whiplash Good morning!🙋🏼♀️ I'm Nicole Fallert. Ask a friend if they can spell "éclaircissement." Close out the week with Friday's news: An appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to keep tariffs while an appeal plays out. Former government workers are running for public office — and winning. A Swiss glacier collapsed in a dramatic display of the impact of climate change. Illinois toys and Trump's tariff reprieve The Trump administration won temporary reprieve Thursday after an appeals court ruled the White House can keep up tariffs while challenging a court order that had blocked them. Trade whiplash: The quick reversal came a day after the United States Court of International Trade invalidated Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs. The administration quickly appealed and won a short-term break. Trump attacked the judges who blocked his tariffs, a ruling later temporarily paused on appeal, and blamed a conservative legal group for giving him bad advice on judicial picks. Trump attacked the judges who blocked his tariffs, a ruling later temporarily paused on appeal, and blamed a conservative legal group for giving him bad advice on judicial picks. No tariff on Spike the Fine Motor Hedgehog: Adding to the mix, a second federal court blocked Trump tariffs Thursday — this time for Illinois companies that import Spike, among other kids' toys. Adding to the mix, a second federal court blocked Trump tariffs Thursday — this time for Illinois companies that import Spike, among other kids' toys. White House officials have vowed to keep pressing the issue in court. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the Trump administration expects the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. Former federal workers are running for public office Itir Cole tried to take some time off after quitting her job with the federal government early in the Trump administration. Then her husband mentioned offhand that there was an open seat on her New Jersey town's governing body. No one else like her was running, so she did — and won her mid-May race by 49 votes. Cole is among a flood of federal workers looking to run for public office. Many say they want to continue serving Americans after leaving the government either voluntarily or through mass layoffs, as Trump dramatically downsizes the federal workforce. More news to know now What's the weather today? Check your local forecast here. Trump temporarily backs down on Harvard international student ban A Boston federal judge said at a hearing Thursday that she planned to issue a preliminary injunction that blocks the Department of Homeland Security from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll foreign exchange students. The comments from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs came as the Trump administration attempted to walk back its May 22 directive that immediately revoked Harvard's participation in a federal exchange student program. Students from around the world attended commencement at the Ivy League on the same day as the hearing. The White House wants women to have more babies. They're ignoring part of the problem — men. America's birth rate has been on a steady decline since 2007, and pronatalists − both in and outside the White House − are determined to raise it. But when partners struggle to conceive, the burden is rarely distributed evenly between men and women. Fertility experts say we're missing a key component of the conversation – male infertility. Experts say male and female infertility factors often coexist, yet a high number of men do not undergo testing before their female partner begins IVF. Advocates say characterizing fertility solely as a woman's issue is part of a 'broader cultural misunderstanding." Today's talkers How understaffed is air traffic control at your airport? Air traffic controller staffing has been a major issue for the Federal Aviation Administration for years. As a result, it's been a major issue for travelers, too, even if it's not always as top of mind for the average passenger when there are delays. According to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the FAA is short about 3,000 air traffic controllers nationwide, but those shortages aren't spread evenly throughout the system. This map shows the disparity between staffing in different facilities across the country. Photo of the day: Swiss glacier collapses, burying village Reuters reports that 90% of Blatten, Switzerland, is engulfed by ice, mud and rock after a glacier collapsed on a nearby mountain. These photos capture how the disaster unfolded.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out
An appeals court ruled President Donald Trump can continue to levy tariffs while challenging a court order that had blocked them, a quick reversal that allows Trump to keep wielding his trademark economic tool in the short term. The May 29 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit comes a day after the United States Court of International Trade invalidated his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs. The May 28 trade court ruling was a setback Trump's economic agenda, but the administration quickly appealed and won at least a temporary reprieve. The surprise ruling by the trade court had threatened to kill or at least delay the imposition of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, as well as import levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.. Tariffs are a centerpiece of Trump's second-term economic agenda. The president has imposed steep levies on goods from foreign countries, igniting international furor, disrupting the global economy, sending markets into a tailspin and raising fears of a recession. But the three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade unanimously found that IEEPA, which Trump invoked to unilaterally enact duties on foreign goods, "does not authorize" the tariffs and ordered them halted. Separately on May 29, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from collecting tariffs from a pair of Illinois toy importers. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered the administration May 29 not to collect tariffs from the comparnies Learning Resources and hand2mind, both based in Vernon Hills, Illinois, while the case is litigated. The rulings were a blow to Trump's trade agenda, but White House officials have vowed to keep pressing the issue in court. During her May 29 briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the Trump administration expects the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. "The president's trade policies will continue," she said. The appeals court gave the plaintiffs challenging Trump's tariffs until June 5 to respond, while the Trump administration has until June 9. Contributing: Bart Jansen, Reuters This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can continue to impose tariffs during appeal
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Donald Trump can continue to impose tariffs during appeal
President Donald Trump's administration can continue to levy tariffs while challenging a court decision blocking him from doing so, an appeals court ruled. The May 29 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit means Trump will still be able to wield his chief economic tool in the short term. It comes a day after the United States Court of International Trade invalidated his use of the the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to levy tariffs.
