Latest news with #Worldwide
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Appeals court halts trade court's tariff injunction: What it means for freight
By Matthew Leffler The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of FreightWaves or its affiliates. In a seismic ruling on Wednesday, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) delivered a stinging defeat to President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policies, striking down a series of import duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The cases, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States and Oregon v. United States, challenged Trump's Worldwide, Retaliatory and Trafficking Tariffs, which slapped duties as high as 25% on goods from Canada, Mexico and China, and 10% globally. The CIT's decision, calling the tariffs an unconstitutional overreach, has sent shockwaves through the freight forwarding, trucking and logistics sectors. Here's what happened, why it matters and what's next for global trade. Since taking office in January, Trump has leaned heavily on tariffs to address trade deficits and drug trafficking, invoking IEEPA — a 1977 law granting presidents emergency economic powers — to bypass Congress. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs, rolled out via Executive Order 14257 in April, imposed a 10% duty on all imports, with higher rates (up to 50%) targeting 25 countries, including a tit-for-tat escalation with China peaking at 125% before settling at 20%. The Trafficking Tariffs, launched in February, hit Canada and Mexico with 25% duties and China with 20%, ostensibly to pressure those nations to curb drug tariffs disrupted supply chains, jacked up costs for importers and sparked fears of retaliatory trade barriers. V.O.S. Selections, a group of small businesses, and a coalition of 12 states led by Oregon, argued the tariffs were an illegal power grab, violating IEEPA's limits and Congress' exclusive authority over commerce under Article I of the Constitution. The CIT agreed, handing plaintiffs a clean sweep on summary judgment. The CIT's 49-page opinion, authored by a three-judge panel, dismantled the tariffs on two fronts. First, it ruled that the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs, aimed at fixing trade deficits, fell under the Trade Act of 1974's Section 122, which caps tariffs at 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments issues. Trump's open-ended, globe-spanning duties blew past those limits, rendering them 'ultra vires' (beyond legal authority). The court noted that IEEPA, while allowing the president to 'regulate importation' during emergencies, doesn't override specific trade laws like Section 122, especially after Congress tightened IEEPA in 1977 to curb executive overreach. Second, the Trafficking Tariffs flunked IEEPA's requirement that actions 'deal with' an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' (50 U.S.C. § 1701). The court found the tariffs, which blanket entire economies rather than targeting trafficking networks, were more about creating 'leverage' than directly addressing the drug crisis. 'Customs's collection of tariffs on lawful imports does not evidently relate to foreign governments' efforts 'to arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept' bad actors,' the court wrote, rejecting the government's argument that economic pressure alone satisfies IEEPA. Crucially, the CIT rejected the government's claim that the tariffs were immune from review under the political question doctrine. The court held that interpreting IEEPA's statutory limits is a judicial task, not a blank check for the president. Citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the court emphasized that executive actions incompatible with Congress' will are at their 'lowest ebb' of freight forwarders, truckers and logistics providers, the ruling is a short-term win. The tariffs, which spiked costs for imported goods like Canadian potash, Mexican auto parts and Chinese electronics, strained cash flow for businesses like V.O.S. Selections, which reported reduced inventory and canceled orders. Genova Pipe, another plaintiff, faced higher raw material costs, while MicroKits warned it might shutter without relief. The CIT's permanent injunction, effective immediately, halts these duties, easing pressure on supply chains already battered by a protracted freight recession. But don't pop the champagne yet. The ruling invites appeal to the Federal Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court, where the administration could argue for broader IEEPA powers. Trump's trade team, led by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, may also pivot to narrower tariff schemes under Section 301 or Section 232, which allow duties for unfair trade practices or national security threats but require rigorous investigations. Retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, like China's response to the Retaliatory Tariffs, could linger, complicating cross-border freight. The CIT's decision is a wake-up call for Trump's trade agenda. By leaning on IEEPA, the administration sidestepped the procedural hurdles of trade statutes, betting on emergency powers to reshape global commerce. The court's rebuke underscores that Congress, not the president, holds the reins on tariffs — a principle rooted in the Constitution's commerce clause. For shippers, the ruling means lower import costs for now, but vigilance is key. Canada and Mexico, vital U.S. trade partners under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, may push for exemptions or trade concessions, impacting trucking routes and border wait times. China's role as a manufacturing hub ensures its goods will remain a flashpoint, with or without tariffs. Freight forwarders should brace for volatility as the administration recalibrates. Longer term, the case could prompt Congress to tighten IEEPA further, echoing post-Watergate reforms that curbed executive power. Until then, the freight industry must navigate a trade landscape where legal battles are as critical as load boards. As one plaintiff, Terry Cycling, put it, these tariffs cost them $25,000 in unplanned duties this year alone. For an industry running on thin margins, that's a hit nobody can afford. On May 29, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order consolidating two appeals from the United States Court of International Trade, where judgments were entered against the United States. The Federal Circuit granted the United States' motion to consolidate the appeals, requiring a single set of briefs, and issued a temporary administrative stay of the Court of International Trade's judgments and injunctions pending further consideration of the United States' stay motions. Looks like tariffs are back on the menu. The plaintiffs were directed to respond to the stay motions by June 5, 2025, with the United States permitted to file a consolidated reply by June 9, 2025, and the parties were instructed to inform the court of any actions taken by the Court of International Trade regarding the pending stay motions. Make no mistake, the outcome of this case will be decided before the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a (quickly) developing case. Matthew Leffler is a trucking industry expert and an adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law. He can be reached at matthew@ faces federal lawsuit over broker transparency dispute The courts are unlikely to end the trade war Court blocks Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, calls them unconstitutional The post Appeals court halts trade court's tariff injunction: What it means for freight appeared first on FreightWaves.
Fibre2Fashion
2 days ago
- Business
- Fibre2Fashion
US trade court says Trump overstepped authority, blocks prez's tariffs
The US Court of International Trade in New York yesterday ruled that President Trump lacks the authority to impose, using emergency powers, broad tariffs on imports from nations that sell more to the United States than they buy. The decision, delivered by a three-judge panel at the court, came after several lawsuits argued that Trump exceeded his legal powers and caused economic disruption by using emergency authority to shape US trade policy, global newswires reported. The US Court of International Trade yesterday ruled that President Trump lacks the authority to impose, using emergency powers, broad tariffs on imports from nations that sell more to the US than they buy. The court said the US constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate external commerce that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the US economy. Trump decision was based on his argument that US trade deficit constituted a national emergency. The United States has run a trade deficit for 49 years in a row. He relied on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the tariffs, which targeted goods from several countries, including Canada, India, China and Mexico, and the European Union. The move was necessary to combat illegal immigration and the flow of drugs into the United States, the Trump administration claimed. The lawsuits, however, argued that the law does not permit the use of tariffs and that trade deficits do not meet the law's requirement of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'. 'The court holds, for the foregoing reasons, that IEEPA does not authorise any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders,' the court stated. The Trump administration says that the courts upheld the then-President Richard Nixon's use of emergency tariffs in 1971 and argues that only Congress, not the courts, has the authority to decide whether a president's emergency declaration meets legal standards. The court said the US constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the US economy. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage. That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it,' the panel said in the decision. The Trump administration has filed a notice of appeal. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
Trump tariff: India gets time to reassess its negotiations with US
NEW DELHI: The US Court's decision to declare President Donald Trump's retaliatory tariff as illegal has given India time to rethink its trade negotiation strategies with the US. In order to escape the retaliatory tariff of 26% on Indian goods exported to the US, India was planning to end the first phase of trade negotiations by June – ahead of the 9 July deadline, when the 90-day relief period ends. But with the US court questioning the legal validity of the tariff, India may want to go slow on ceding grounds to the US by agreeing to lower tariff on imports from the US, according to government sources. Queries regarding this sent to the Ministry of Commerce did not elicit any response till the time of writing of this report. The US Court of International Trade has ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise any of the 'Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders'. 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders,' said the court in its order.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
US court curbs Trump's tariff power: How it eases pressure on India
Weeks before India and the US were due to sign an interim trade deal to meet the July 8 deadline for reciprocal tariffs, the US Court of International Trade on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to regulate imports into the US through tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). 'The court holds, for the foregoing reasons, that IEEPA does not authorise any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders,' the court stated. Notably, the ruling does not affect tariffs issued by the Trump administration under separate legal provisions, including 25 per cent duty on steel, aluminum and automotive parts where India exporters will continue to face higher tariffs. The New York Times reported White House spokesman, Kush Desai, stating that : 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' and that Trump would use 'every lever of executive power to address this crisis.' Trump had announced 26 per cent reciprocal tariffs on India and pushed for the opening up of politically sensitive sectors, such as agriculture, during the ongoing trade deal negotiations. However, with the court order casting doubt on Trump's ability to impose unilateral tariffs, India may no longer need to negotiate under the pressure of reciprocal tariffs. A section of officials in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry had expressed concerns about India's willingness to open up most sectors in order to avoid reciprocal tariffs. New Delhi had already announced several duty cuts—such as on bourbon whiskey and motorbikes—during the Union Budget presentation. The pressure to sign a trade agreement with the US was high as India has agreed to a terms of reference (ToR) that will kickstart trade deal negotiations just before the implementation of reciprocal tariffs on April 2, The Indian Express had reported. Experts said that with concessions on reciprocal tariffs no longer on the table, India can now seek better market access for its goods from the US under the trade deal, and may also recalibrate its stance on sensitive issues such as data localisation to address domestic concerns. While Trump had been pushing India to liberalise the movement of data and provide better access for Big Tech companies, a 2018 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report, Power, Platforms, and the Free Trade Delusion, highlighted that access to and control over data has long been a source of 'market power' and can create barriers to entry for new players. A Standing Committee on Finance report (2022–23) concerning anti-competitive practices by Big Tech firms also observed that Google Play, as the dominant source for downloading apps on Android, mandates the use of its payment system for paid apps and in-app purchases. 'It appears that Google controls a significant volume of payments processed in this market,' the report stated. The report also said that Google unfairly privileges Google Pay by prominently placing it on the Play Store, Android operating system, and Android-based smartphones, while skewing search results on the Play Store in favour of its payment app. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), in a preliminary order, observed that manipulating such features could act as a potent tool to divert traffic to Google's app, thereby undermining 'competition on the merits'. According to the United States Trade Representative's (USTR's) Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, the US continues to encourage India to adopt an 'open skies' satellite policy to allow consumers the flexibility to select the satellite capacity provider that best suits their business requirements. This comes as DOGE chief Elon Musk, a close confidant of President Donald Trump, is a promoter of the Starlink satellite communication service. Ravi Dutta Mishra is a Principal Correspondent with The Indian Express, covering policy issues related to trade, commerce, and banking. He has over five years of experience and has previously worked with Mint, CNBC-TV18, and other news outlets. ... Read More
The Sun
23-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Android owners warned over new apps on Google Play Store that could empty bank accounts of whopping £5,000
ANDROID owners should be wary of a big change coming to the Google Play Store that means some apps could cost thousands to install. Google has just raised its pricing limit from £1,000 to £4,999, according to Android Authority. 1 The tech giant bumped its maximum app prices from £200 to £400 in 2015, and then again last year to £1,000. The price limit applies worldwide - except South Korea, which will stick to the equivalent of a £400 maximum. So if you see any blisteringly expensive apps on the Play Store - it's not a glitch, or a joke. You don't want to accidentally buy something you cannot really afford. And they're not scams either. Google has made sure these apps have to prove themselves before whacking on such a lofty price tag. For example, only established developers in good standing with Google are eligible. These apps must also prove they are bringing in at least $1million a year in app sales. Then they can formally request Google give them the uplift, after explaining exactly why the pricing is justified. Google's Gemini AI app lets you chat out loud with shockingly humanlike virtual helper It's not yet clear what type of apps could cost so much - or who would be buying them. Although the appetite for artificial intelligence (AI) applications could explain it. Google itself recently introduced an eye-watering $3,000 per year subscription for AI Ultra - so it's no surprise these big numbers are on the brain. Currently, the most expensive app on the Google Play Store appears to be a spoof game called Fisherpunk, which costs an eyewatering £300. Despite its price, and incredibly basic design, Fisherpunk has been downloaded more than 1,000 times. On the rival Apple Store, CyberTuner, a software tool for tuning pianos, is available for a whopping £999. WHAT CAN GOOGLE PLAY PROTECT DO? Google Play Protect can help shield Android owners from dodgy apps. Here's the official list of actions it'll take... It runs a safety check on apps from the Google Play Store before you download them. It checks your device for potentially harmful apps from other sources. These harmful apps are sometimes called malware. It warns you about potentially harmful apps. It may deactivate or remove harmful apps from your device. It warns you about detected apps that violate our Unwanted Software Policy by hiding or misrepresenting important information. It sends you privacy alerts about apps that can get user permissions to access your personal information, violating our developer policy. It may reset app permissions to protect your privacy on certain Android versions. It may prevent an application from being installed that is unverified and uses sensitive device permissions that are commonly targeted by scammers to commit financial fraud. Picture Credit: Google
