Latest news with #V.O.S.Selections
The Age
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Age
How Victor took on the US president – and blew up Trump's plans to tax the world
A global business V.O.S. Selections has 19 employees and imports wines, spirits and sakes from 16 countries, including Italy, France and South Africa. Trump's tariffs would leave the company unable to plan import orders, and its relationships with wholesale customers and farmers who produce wine would suffer, Schwartz said in a declaration to the trade court. Loading Eventually, he wrote, the business could become untenable. 'We have to come up with this cash flow somehow. That's not a little bit of money – that's thousands and thousands of dollars on each container,' Schwartz said. 'It's not a small thing. It's not easy. You can't absorb it if you're a small company.' And the wine his company imports is valuable in part because of the characteristics imparted by growing certain grape varietals in specific areas. 'A popular wine like chianti cannot be replicated domestically because the raw ingredients only exist in that specific geographical location in Tuscany, Italy, and the wine can only be raised in the specific climate of that place to produce the qualities that a customer seeks when buying a bottle of said wine,' Schwartz said in his court filing. The broader wine industry has similar concerns. The National Association of Wine Retailers urged the Trump administration to reconsider the sweeping tariffs in an April statement, noting that wine importers, wine wholesalers, wine retailers and domestic wine producers would suffer 'significant revenue reductions, lay-offs, and business closings'. But in its filing to the Court of International Trade, which has exclusive jurisdictional authority over such disputes, the Trump administration called the claims of harm 'speculative', writing that they only show the 'possibility' of future economic loss. The government argued that Trump has the authority to impose broad tariffs on imported goods under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to reverse trade deficits it sees as a national emergency. They said the law's language authorising the president to 'regulate … importation' granted him full powers over tariff rates. But the trade court's three-judge panel disagreed: 'The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority,' the judges wrote in their decision on Wednesday, adding that the administration's justifications failed to meet the law's requirement that it be used to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat'. Unexpected costs loom Earlier this year, Schwartz was connected to the Liberty Justice Centre, a nonpartisan group in Austin, Texas, after sharing the tariffs' impact on his business with his nephew's former law professor, Ilya Somin, who is also co-counsel on the case before the Court of International Trade. When Schwartz was asked if he wanted to become the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, he discussed the decision with his family. They convinced him he needed to take the leap. 'Everyone is very afraid of this person, so no one will step up,' Schwartz said of Trump. 'I can't complain about other people not stepping up. It was right at my plate, and I had to do it.' But the effect of Trump's tariffs extends far beyond the wine industry, including to clothing brands such as Terry Precision Cycling, a business that specialises in women's cycling attire and is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Vermont-based brand imports fabrics and finished goods from several countries, including Guatemala, China and the Philippines. It paid $25,000 in unplanned tariffs in 2025 and expects to pay an additional $250,000 in tariffs by the end of the year, according to court documents. Terry Precision Cycling will face an estimated $1.2 million in tariff costs in 2026 – 'which it will not be able to pay'. That sentiment is reflected across nearly a dozen small businesses spanning the clothing, gaming and mechanical industries that filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. All but one directly import goods from abroad, and some have already paid additional tariffs under Trump's trade war policy. The companies said that 'sudden and dramatic increases in tariff amounts, together with the uncertainty of an ever-changing policy, threaten immediate and existential harm' to their continued operation. They added that tariffs made it 'all but impossible to plan', and that switching to fully domestic manufacturing would 'take many years'. The court decisions this week have provoked strong reactions from the White House. Shortly after the trade court blocked the new tariffs, Trump adviser Stephen Miller wrote on X, 'We are living under a judicial tyranny.' Loading Trump celebrated the temporary stay delivered by the federal appeals court on Thursday (Friday AEST) in a post on Truth Social, calling the tariffs 'desperately needed', and calling the trade court 'so wrong, and so political!' The appeals court is expected to issue a ruling on whether to pause the tariffs while it hears the case some time within the next two weeks, Liberty Justice Centre senior counsel and interim director of litigation Jeffrey Schwab said.
Sydney Morning Herald
10 hours ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
How Victor took on the US president – and blew up Trump's plans to tax the world
A global business V.O.S. Selections has 19 employees and imports wines, spirits and sakes from 16 countries, including Italy, France and South Africa. Trump's tariffs would leave the company unable to plan import orders, and its relationships with wholesale customers and farmers who produce wine would suffer, Schwartz said in a declaration to the trade court. Loading Eventually, he wrote, the business could become untenable. 'We have to come up with this cash flow somehow. That's not a little bit of money – that's thousands and thousands of dollars on each container,' Schwartz said. 'It's not a small thing. It's not easy. You can't absorb it if you're a small company.' And the wine his company imports is valuable in part because of the characteristics imparted by growing certain grape varietals in specific areas. 'A popular wine like chianti cannot be replicated domestically because the raw ingredients only exist in that specific geographical location in Tuscany, Italy, and the wine can only be raised in the specific climate of that place to produce the qualities that a customer seeks when buying a bottle of said wine,' Schwartz said in his court filing. The broader wine industry has similar concerns. The National Association of Wine Retailers urged the Trump administration to reconsider the sweeping tariffs in an April statement, noting that wine importers, wine wholesalers, wine retailers and domestic wine producers would suffer 'significant revenue reductions, lay-offs, and business closings'. But in its filing to the Court of International Trade, which has exclusive jurisdictional authority over such disputes, the Trump administration called the claims of harm 'speculative', writing that they only show the 'possibility' of future economic loss. The government argued that Trump has the authority to impose broad tariffs on imported goods under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to reverse trade deficits it sees as a national emergency. They said the law's language authorising the president to 'regulate … importation' granted him full powers over tariff rates. But the trade court's three-judge panel disagreed: 'The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority,' the judges wrote in their decision on Wednesday, adding that the administration's justifications failed to meet the law's requirement that it be used to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat'. Unexpected costs loom Earlier this year, Schwartz was connected to the Liberty Justice Centre, a nonpartisan group in Austin, Texas, after sharing the tariffs' impact on his business with his nephew's former law professor, Ilya Somin, who is also co-counsel on the case before the Court of International Trade. When Schwartz was asked if he wanted to become the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, he discussed the decision with his family. They convinced him he needed to take the leap. 'Everyone is very afraid of this person, so no one will step up,' Schwartz said of Trump. 'I can't complain about other people not stepping up. It was right at my plate, and I had to do it.' But the effect of Trump's tariffs extends far beyond the wine industry, including to clothing brands such as Terry Precision Cycling, a business that specialises in women's cycling attire and is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Vermont-based brand imports fabrics and finished goods from several countries, including Guatemala, China and the Philippines. It paid $25,000 in unplanned tariffs in 2025 and expects to pay an additional $250,000 in tariffs by the end of the year, according to court documents. Terry Precision Cycling will face an estimated $1.2 million in tariff costs in 2026 – 'which it will not be able to pay'. That sentiment is reflected across nearly a dozen small businesses spanning the clothing, gaming and mechanical industries that filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. All but one directly import goods from abroad, and some have already paid additional tariffs under Trump's trade war policy. The companies said that 'sudden and dramatic increases in tariff amounts, together with the uncertainty of an ever-changing policy, threaten immediate and existential harm' to their continued operation. They added that tariffs made it 'all but impossible to plan', and that switching to fully domestic manufacturing would 'take many years'. The court decisions this week have provoked strong reactions from the White House. Shortly after the trade court blocked the new tariffs, Trump adviser Stephen Miller wrote on X, 'We are living under a judicial tyranny.' Loading Trump celebrated the temporary stay delivered by the federal appeals court on Thursday (Friday AEST) in a post on Truth Social, calling the tariffs 'desperately needed', and calling the trade court 'so wrong, and so political!' The appeals court is expected to issue a ruling on whether to pause the tariffs while it hears the case some time within the next two weeks, Liberty Justice Centre senior counsel and interim director of litigation Jeffrey Schwab said.
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
President Trump isn't a tariff king
In a ruling heard 'round the world, the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked President Trump's sweeping tariffs. This is an important moment for the rule of law as much as for the economy, proving again that America doesn't have a king who can rule by decree. The Trump tariffs have created enormous costs and uncertainty, but now we know they're illegal. As the three-judge panel explains in its detailed 52-page ruling, the President exceeded his emergency powers and bypassed discrete tariff authorities delegated to him by Congress. The ruling erases his April 2 tariffs as well as those on Canada and Mexico. Small businesses and several states (V.O.S. Selections v. U.S.) challenged Mr. Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs willy-nilly. That law gives the President broad authority in a national emergency to 'deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat" including to 'regulate" the 'importation" of foreign property. After declaring fentanyl an emergency, the President in February slapped tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. Then in April he deemed the U.S. trade deficit an emergency and imposed tariffs of varying rates on the world. He later reduced those to 10% across the board for 90 days, supposedly to allow time to negotiate trade deals. No other President has used IEEPA to impose tariffs. As the trade court explains, Richard Nixon used the law's precursor, the Trading With the Enemy Act, in 1971 to impose 10% tariffs for a short period to address a balance of payments problem. The Justice Department said Mr. Trump's tariffs are no different. Not so. As the panel notes, Nixon tariffs were upheld by an appeals court because they were a 'limited surcharge" and 'temporary measure calculated to help meet a particular national emergency, which is quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." The latter is what Mr. Trump did, at one point jacking up rates to 145% on China. Congress also limited the President's emergency powers in IEEPA to prevent overreach. 'The legislative history surrounding IEEPA confirms that the words 'regulate . . . importation' have a narrower meaning than the power to impose any tariffs whatsoever," the panel notes. Mr. Trump invoked IEEPA because he wanted to impose tariffs as he sees fit. But the Constitution doesn't let the President ignore Congress and do whatever he wants. 'Under the major questions doctrine, when Congress delegates powers of 'vast economic and political significance,' it must 'speak clearly,'" the judges stress. Democrats panned the major questions doctrine when the High Court used it to block Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness, but perhaps they will now see its wisdom. The judges also say Mr. Trump's fentanyl tariffs are unlawful because they don't, as IEEPA requires, 'deal with" their stated objectives. The government's theory would permit 'any infliction of a burden on a counterparty to exact concessions," the panel notes. 'If 'deal with' can mean 'impose a burden until someone else deals with,' then everything is permitted." Exactly. The court's ruling effectively slams the door on IEEPA as a basis to impose tariffs. This means a future Democratic President can't declare a climate emergency and wield tariffs to punish countries for CO2 emissions. Conservatives ought to cheer this restraint on one-man rule. White House officials are attacking the trade court's ruling as liberal judicial overreach, though the three judges were Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees. On Thursday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put a stay on the trade court's ruling while it considers Mr. Trump's emergency appeal. Meanwhile, a separate federal judge also ruled the tariffs illegal under IEEPA. The White House boasts it will win at the Supreme Court, but our reading of the trade court's opinion suggests the opposite. Mr. Trump's three Court appointees are likely to invoke the major-questions precedent. Mr. Trump has other laws he can use to impose tariffs, though most are more limited than his emergency claims. The most expansive is Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which lets a President impose duties up to 50% on countries found to discriminate against the U.S. But no President has ever done so. Mr. Trump would be wiser to heed the trade court's ruling as the political gift it is and liberate his Presidency and the economy from his destructive tariff obsessions.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The sweeping federal court order blocking Trump's tariffs, explained
Editor's note, May 29, 4:10 pm ET: On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay of the trade court's decision striking down the tariffs. This is a temporary order, which effectively hits 'pause' on the case until the Federal Circuit has enough time to decide whether to issue a more long-lasting order leaving the tariffs in place. The Federal Circuit also called for additional briefing on whether to issue a more extended stay, with the final brief due on June 9. The tariffs will almost certainly remain in effect until that final brief is filed. The story below was published on May 28. A federal court ruled on Wednesday evening that the massive tariffs President Donald Trump imposed shortly after beginning his second term are illegal. The US Court of International Trade's decision in two consolidated cases — known as V.O.S. Selections v. United States and Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security — is quite broad. It argues that the Constitution places fairly strict limits on Congress's ability to empower the president to impose tariffs in the first place — limits that Trump surpassed — and it reads several federal trade laws to place rigid constraints on Trump's ability to continue his trade war. The decision may not be final; it can be appealed up to the Supreme Court. But if higher courts embrace the trade court's reasoning, Trump most likely will not be able to reimpose the sweeping kind of tariffs at issue in the V.O.S. Selections case, although he might still be able to impose more modest tariffs that are more limited in scope and duration. The three-judge panel that decided V.O.S. Selections unanimously agreed that the Trump's tariffs, as they stand now, are illegal in an unsigned opinion. The panel included judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself. Trump primarily relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he imposed his tariffs. That statute permits the president to 'regulate…transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,' but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' The trade court's first significant holding is that, although a federal appeals court has held that this power to 'regulate' foreign transactions sometimes permits the president to impose tariffs, this statute cannot be read to give Trump 'unlimited tariff authority.' That is, the IEEPA does not give Trump the power he claims to impose tariffs of any amount, upon any nation, for any duration. Significantly, the trade court, based in New York City, concludes that the statute cannot be read to give Trump unchecked authority over tariffs because, if Congress had intended to give Trump that power, then the statute would violate the Constitution's separation of powers because Congress cannot simply give away its full authority over tariffs to the president. Among other things, the court points to a line of Supreme Court decisions establishing that Congress may only delegate authority to the president if it lays 'down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such [tariff] rates is directed to conform.' So, if the president's authority over tariffs is as broad as Trump claims, the statute is unconstitutional because it does not provide sufficient instructions on when or how that authority may be used. The court's second significant holding arises out of Trump's claim that the tariffs are needed to address the nation's trade deficit — the fact that Americans buy more goods from foreign nations than we export. But, as the trade court explains, there is a separate federal law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — which governs the president's power to impose tariffs in response to trade deficits. This statute only permits the president to impose tariff rates of 15 percent or lower, and those tariffs may only remain in effect for 150 days. The trade court concludes that Trump may only rely on his authority under Section 122 if he wants to impose tariffs to respond to trade deficits. So, while he could potentially reimpose some tariffs under this law, they would expire after five months. The court's third significant holding arises out of IEEPA's language stating that any tariffs imposed under this statute must 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump justified some of his tariffs by claiming that they will help deter the importation of illegal drugs into the United States, but the trade court concludes that these tariffs don't actually do anything to 'deal with' the threat of drug trafficking — and thus they are illegal. As the trade court argues, the tariffs do not directly prevent any illegal drugs from entering the United States. Trump's lawyers argued that the tariffs will help reduce illegal drug trafficking because other nations will crack down on drug dealers in order to be rid of the tariffs, but the court rejects the argument that the tariffs can be justified because they pressure other nations to shift their domestic policies. '[H]owever sound this might be as a diplomatic strategy, it does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of 'deal[ing] with' the cited emergency,' the court argues, adding that 'it is hard to conceive of any IEEPA power that could not be justified on the same ground of 'pressure.'' Finally, the court ends its opinion by permanently enjoining the tariffs on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court is currently debating whether to limit lower courts' power to issue such nationwide orders, but the trade court makes a strong argument that it is constitutionally required to block the tariffs throughout the country: As the V.O.S. Selections opinion notes, the Constitution provides that 'all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.' So, if these tariffs cannot lawfully be imposed on one person, the same rule must apply to all persons. The trade court is the first federal court to rule on whether these tariffs are legal, but it is unlikely to be the last. This court's decisions ordinarily appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. And Trump is all but certain to ask higher courts to lift the trade court's injunction. These higher courts could potentially reveal fairly soon whether they think the tariffs are legal. In an order accompanying the trade court's decision, the court announces that 'within 10 calendar days necessary administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction shall issue.' So, if no higher court steps in, Trump's tariffs will cease to exist very soon. Of course, Trump will no doubt seek a stay of the trade court's decision from the Federal Circuit and, if the Federal Circuit rules against him, the Supreme Court. That means that, depending on how the Federal Circuit rules, the Supreme Court may have to decide whether to reinstate the tariffs within weeks. So, while higher courts will need to weigh in before we know if the tariffs will survive, we may know what the justices think about Trump's tariffs very soon.
Vox
4 days ago
- Business
- Vox
The sweeping federal court order blocking Trump's tariffs, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. A federal court ruled on Wednesday evening that the massive tariffs President Donald Trump imposed shortly after beginning his second term are illegal. The US Court of International Trade's decision in two consolidated cases – known as V.O.S. Selections v. United States and Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security – is quite broad. It argues that the Constitution places fairly strict limits on Congress's ability to empower the president to impose tariffs in the first place — limits that Trump surpassed — and it reads several federal trade laws to place rigid constraints on Trump's ability to continue his trade war. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The decision may not be final; it can be appealed up to the Supreme Court. But if higher courts embrace the trade court's reasoning, Trump most likely will not be able to reimpose the sweeping kind of tariffs at issue in the V.O.S. Selections case, although he might still be able to impose more modest tariffs that are more limited in scope and duration. The three-judge panel that decided V.O.S. Selections unanimously agreed that the Trump's tariffs, as they stand now, are illegal in an unsigned opinion. The panel included judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself. The trade court judges reached four significant conclusions in the V.O.S. Selections opinion Trump primarily relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he imposed his tariffs. That statute permits the president to 'regulate…transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,' but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' The trade court's first significant holding is that, although a federal appeals court has held that this power to 'regulate' foreign transactions sometimes permits the president to impose tariffs, this statute cannot be read to give Trump 'unlimited tariff authority.' That is, the IEEPA does not give Trump the power he claims to impose tariffs of any amount, upon any nation, for any duration. Significantly, the trade court concludes that the statute cannot be read to give Trump unchecked authority over tariffs because, if Congress had intended to give Trump that power, then the statute would violate the Constitution's separation of powers because Congress cannot simply give away its full authority over tariffs to the president. Among other things, the court points to a line of Supreme Court decisions establishing that Congress may only delegate authority to the president if it lays 'down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such [tariff] rates is directed to conform.' So, if the president's authority over tariffs is as broad as Trump claims, the statute is unconstitutional because it does not provide sufficient instructions on when or how that authority may be used. The court's second significant holding arises out of Trump's claim that the tariffs are needed to address the nation's trade deficit – the fact that Americans buy more goods from foreign nations than we export. But, as the trade court explains, there is a separate federal law – Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 – which governs the president's power to impose tariffs in response to trade deficits. This statute only permits the president to impose tariff rates of 15 percent or lower, and those tariffs may only remain in effect for 150 days. The trade court concludes that Trump may only rely on his authority under Section 122 if he wants to impose tariffs to respond to trade deficits. So, while he could potentially reimpose some tariffs under this law, they would expire after five months. The court's third significant holding arises out of IEEPA's language stating that any tariffs imposed under this statute must 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump justified some of his tariffs by claiming that they will help deter the importation of illegal drugs into the United States, but the trade court concludes that these tariffs don't actually do anything to 'deal with' the threat of drug trafficking – and thus they are illegal. As the trade court argues, the tariffs do not directly prevent any illegal drugs from entering the United States. Trump's lawyers argued that the tariffs will help reduce illegal drug trafficking because other nations will crack down on drug dealers in order to be rid of the tariffs, but the court rejects the argument that the tariffs can be justified because they pressure other nations to shift their domestic policies. '[H]owever sound this might be as a diplomatic strategy, it does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of 'deal[ing] with' the cited emergency,' the court argues, adding that 'it is hard to conceive of any IEEPA power that could not be justified on the same ground of 'pressure.'' Finally, the court ends its opinion by permanently enjoining the tariffs on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court is currently debating whether to limit lower courts' power to issue such nationwide orders, but the trade court makes a strong argument that it is constitutionally required to block the tariffs throughout the country: As the V.O.S. Selections opinion notes, the Constitution provides that 'all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.' So, if these tariffs cannot lawfully be imposed on one person, the same rule must apply to all persons. So what happens from here? The trade court is the first federal court to rule on whether these tariffs are legal, but it is unlikely to be the last. This court's decisions ordinarily appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. And Trump is all but certain to ask higher courts to lift the trade court's injunction. These higher courts could potentially reveal fairly soon whether they think the tariffs are legal. In an order accompanying the trade court's decision, the court announces that 'within 10 calendar days necessary administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction shall issue.' So, if no higher court steps in, Trump's tariffs will cease to exist very soon. Of course, Trump will no doubt seek a stay of the trade court's decision from the Federal Circuit and, if the Federal Circuit rules against him, the Supreme Court. That means that, depending on how the Federal Circuit rules, the Supreme Court may have to decide whether to reinstate the tariffs within weeks.
