Latest news with #legalChallenges
News.com.au
2 days ago
- Business
- News.com.au
U.S. Tariffs Are Still in Place. Here's What You Need to Know
WSJ's Deputy Finance Editor Quentin Webb explains how trade talks have been impacted by legal challenges to President Trump's tariffs.
CNN
2 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Appeals Court Temporarily Reinstates Trump Tariffs - Anderson Cooper 360 - Podcast on CNN Audio
Appeals Court Temporarily Reinstates Trump Tariffs Anderson Cooper 360 47 mins A day after one court put President Trump's tariffs on hold, a higher court lets them go forward, for now. Just one of three rulings today, in more than 200 legal challenges that this second Trump administration is facing. Plus, Anderson's conversation with the CEO of leading AI company Anthropic, and his warning that the technology could have a sudden and devastating impact on American jobs in the next few years.
Arab News
3 days ago
- Business
- Arab News
Trump's big plans on trade and more run up against laws of political gravity, separation of powers
WASHINGTON: Once again, President Donald Trump's biggest policy plans were stopped in their tracks. On Wednesday, an obscure but powerful court in New York rejected the legal foundation of Trump's most sweeping tariffs, finding that Trump could not use a 1977 law to declare a national emergency on trade imbalances and fentanyl smuggling to justify a series of import taxes that have unsettled the world. Reordering the global economy by executive fiat was an unconstitutional end-run around Congress' powers, the three-judge panel of Trump, Obama and Reagan appointees ruled in a scathing rebuke of Trump's action. The setbacks fit a broader pattern for a president who has advanced an extraordinarily expansive view of executive power. Federal courts have called out the lack of due process in some of Trump's deportation efforts. His proposed income tax cuts, now working their way through Congress, are so costly that some of them can't be made permanent, as Trump had wished. His efforts to humble Harvard University and cut the federal workforce have encountered legal obstacles. And he's running up against reality as his pledges to quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have turned into slogs. The laws of political gravity, the separation of powers and geopolitical realities are proving to be tougher to conquer than Trump will publicly admit. As various legal skirmishes play out, he may have to choose between bowing to the limits of his power or trying to ignore the judicial system. 'If the latter, we may have a constitutional crisis,' said University of Texas history professor H.W. Brands. After a second federal court on Thursday found Trump's tariffs to be improper, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration expects to prevail in its judicial appeals but also indicated that officials are exploring other laws to implement tariffs. A federal appeals court said Thursday the government can continue to collect the tariffs under the emergency powers law for now as the Trump administration challenges the ruling, though the government could be obligated to refund the money if the ruling is upheld. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said there are two baseball caps in the room behind the Oval Office that say 'Trump Always Wins' and Trump has been 'right' about everything. 'Trump does always win these negotiations because we're right,' Hassett said on Fox Business Network's 'Mornings with Maria.' 'These activist judges are trying to slow down something right in the middle of really important negotiations.' Part of Trump's challenge lies in the nature of the job, in which only the thorniest of problems cross his desk. But there's also the fact that Trump's keen instincts for what plays well on TV don't necessarily help with the nitty-gritty of policy details. By unilaterally ordering tariffs, deportations and other actions through the White House, Trump is bypassing both Congress and the broader public, which could have given more popular legitimacy to his policy choices, said Princeton University history professor Julian Zelizer. 'The president is trying to achieve his goals outside normal legal processes and without focusing on public buy-in,' Zelizer said. 'The problem is that we do have a constitutional system and there are many things a president can't do. The courts are simply saying no. The reality is that many of his boldest decisions stand on an incredibly fragile foundation.' As Trump sees it, his tariffs would solve genuine problems. His 'Liberation Day' taxes on imports would close persistent trade imbalances with other countries, with his 10 percent baseline tariff providing a stream of revenue to help offset the trillions of dollars in federal borrowing that would be created by his planned income tax cuts. But when the financial markets panicked and the interest charged on US debt shot up, Trump backtracked and ratcheted down many of his tariffs to 10 percent while negotiations began to take place. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested this had been the plan all along to force new trade negotiations. But Trump shortly undercut him by saying on the White House South Lawn that he backed down because the financial markets were getting 'yippy' — a reminder that Trump's own improvizatory and disruptive style can upend any working policy process. Trump still has tariffs in place on autos, steel and aluminum. Those are tied to the premise that imports would create national security risks based on previous investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He could use other laws to start new investigations or temporarily impose tariffs, but the White House is more focused at the moment on challenging the court rulings. 'What is unprecedented is Trump asserting authority under a 1977 statute that had never been used for tariffs, not just for targeted tariffs, but the largest tariffs since the 1930s,' said Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who served in the Biden White House. 'That's what is unprecedented and unusual.' Harrell said Trump could re-create many of his tariffs using other laws but 'it would require more work and be a much more orderly process.' Rice University history professor Douglas Brinkley said Trump's sense of the presidency relies on a deep misreading of the office. He mistakenly assumes that the tariffs used in the 19th century to fund a much smaller federal government would now be able to pay for a much larger federal government. But he also assumes that power flows to and from him, rather than from institutions and the rule of law. 'He doesn't seem to realize that anytime he doesn't listen to the court orders that he's making an anti-American statement,' Brinkley said. 'It's telling people that I'm bigger than the American Constitution, that judges are just errand boys for me.' The Trump White House blamed its latest setback on the US Court of International Trade. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said in a Bloomberg News interview that the judicial branch was part of the problem, keeping Trump from delivering on his promises. 'We've got courts in this country who are basically engaged in attacks on the American people,' Navarro said. 'The president ran on stopping the fentanyl poisoning, stopping international trade unfair practices from stealing our factories and jobs. And courts keep getting in the way of that.'
Associated Press
3 days ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Trump's big plans on trade and more run up against laws of political gravity, separation of powers
WASHINGTON (AP) — Once again, President Donald Trump's biggest policy plans were stopped in their tracks. On Wednesday, an obscure but powerful court in New York rejected the legal foundation of Trump's most sweeping tariffs, finding that Trump could not use a 1977 law to declare a national emergency on trade imbalances and fentanyl smuggling to justify a series of import taxes that have unsettled the world. Reordering the global economy by executive fiat was an unconstitutional end-run around Congress' powers, the three-judge panel of Trump, Obama and Reagan appointees ruled in a scathing rebuke of Trump's action. The setbacks fit a broader pattern for a president who has advanced an extraordinarily expansive view of executive power. Federal courts have called out the lack of due process in some of Trump's deportation efforts. His proposed income tax cuts, now working their way through Congress, are so costly that some of them can't be made permanent, as Trump had wished. His efforts to humble Harvard University and cut the federal workforce have encountered legal obstacles. And he's running up against reality as his pledges to quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have turned into slogs. The laws of political gravity, the separation of powers and geopolitical realities are proving to be tougher to conquer than Trump will publicly admit. As various legal skirmishes play out, he may have to choose between bowing to the limits of his power or trying to ignore the judicial system. 'If the latter, we may have a constitutional crisis,' said University of Texas history professor H.W. Brands. After a second federal court on Thursday found Trump's tariffs to be improper, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration expects to prevail in its judicial appeals but also indicated that officials are exploring other laws to implement tariffs. A federal appeals court said Thursday the government can continue to collect the tariffs under the emergency powers law for now as the Trump administration challenges the ruling, though the government could be obligated to refund the money if the ruling is upheld. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said there are two baseball caps in the room behind the Oval Office that say 'Trump Always Wins' and Trump has been 'right' about everything. 'Trump does always win these negotiations because we're right,' Hassett said on Fox Business Network's 'Mornings with Maria.' 'These activist judges are trying to slow down something right in the middle of really important negotiations.' Part of Trump's challenge lies in the nature of the job, in which only the thorniest of problems cross his desk. But there's also the fact that Trump's keen instincts for what plays well on TV don't necessarily help with the nitty-gritty of policy details. By unilaterally ordering tariffs, deportations and other actions through the White House, Trump is bypassing both Congress and the broader public, which could have given more popular legitimacy to his policy choices, said Princeton University history professor Julian Zelizer. 'The president is trying to achieve his goals outside normal legal processes and without focusing on public buy-in,' Zelizer said. 'The problem is that we do have a constitutional system and there are many things a president can't do. The courts are simply saying no. The reality is that many of his boldest decisions stand on an incredibly fragile foundation.' As Trump sees it, his tariffs would solve genuine problems. His 'Liberation Day' taxes on imports would close persistent trade imbalances with other countries, with his 10% baseline tariff providing a stream of revenue to help offset the trillions of dollars in federal borrowing that would be created by his planned income tax cuts. But when the financial markets panicked and the interest charged on U.S. debt shot up, Trump backtracked and ratcheted down many of his tariffs to 10% while negotiations began to take place. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested this had been the plan all along to force new trade negotiations. But Trump shortly undercut him by saying on the White House South Lawn that he backed down because the financial markets were getting 'yippy' — a reminder that Trump's own improvisatory and disruptive style can upend any working policy process. Trump still has tariffs in place on autos, steel and aluminum, based on national security arguments under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He could use other laws to start new investigations or temporarily impose tariffs, but the White House for now is focused on challenging the court rulings. 'What is unprecedented is Trump asserting authority under a 1977 statute that had never been used for tariffs, not just for targeted tariffs, but the largest tariffs since the 1930s,' said Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who served in the Biden White House. 'That's what is unprecedented and unusual.' Harrell said Trump could re-create many of his tariffs using other laws but 'it would require more work and be a much more orderly process.' Rice University history professor Douglas Brinkley said Trump's sense of the presidency relies on a deep misreading of the office. He mistakenly assumes that the tariffs used in the 19th century to fund a much smaller federal government would now be able to pay for a much larger federal government. But he also assumes that power flows to and from him, rather than from institutions and the rule of law. 'He doesn't seem to realize that anytime he doesn't listen to the court orders that he's making an anti-American statement,' Brinkley said. 'It's telling people that I'm bigger than the American Constitution, that judges are just errand boys for me.' The Trump White House blamed its latest setback on the U.S. Court of International Trade. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said in a Bloomberg News interview that the judicial branch was part of the problem, keeping Trump from delivering on his promises. 'We've got courts in this country who are basically engaged in attacks on the American people,' Navarro said. 'The president ran on stopping the fentanyl poisoning, stopping international trade unfair practices from stealing our factories and jobs. And courts keep getting in the way of that.'
New York Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Canceled Deportation Protections. Here's Where Legal Challenges Stand.
President Trump has moved to roll back the government programs that protect certain immigrants in the United States from deportation, prompting several court challenges amid his administration's broader immigration crackdown. Over the past several months, Mr. Trump has revoked the legal status afforded to some Ukrainians displaced by Russia's invasion and Afghan citizens who helped the American war effort in their country. He has also canceled the protected status of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who fled instability and political violence back home — potentially leaving them vulnerable to deportation. Perhaps most prominent has been Mr. Trump's targeting of nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to stay under a program known as Temporary Protected Status. In response to the administration's emergency application, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed the government to move forward with plans to lift those protections — at least for now. But other cases involving immigrants with protected status are moving forward, as well, with thousands of people in limbo. Here's what to know about the major challenges to Mr. Trump's actions, and where things stand. Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans: Noem v. Doe The Supreme Court has not yet released a decision on another emergency application that could affect Venezuelan immigrants. In that case, the Trump administration has asked the court to allow it to revoke deportation protections for migrants from four troubled countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. A lower court judge issued an emergency order in April blocking the termination of legal status of many of the more than 500,000 migrants who entered the country under the program. That case involves a different protective shield — not the Temporary Protected Status program — that allowed people from those countries to enter and remain in the United States temporarily through a legal mechanism called humanitarian parole. That form of relief grants people temporary residence in the United States for urgent humanitarian or public interest reasons. First filed in Massachusetts in February, the case took an expansive view of policy shifts pursued by Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary. It aimed to halt the immediate suspension of several temporary status programs, as well as Trump administration efforts to block people already granted humanitarian parole from applying for other, more permanent pathways to stay in the country. 'This lawsuit challenges the steps the Trump administration has taken to radically limit what had up to this point been a broad power granted by Congress to allow the executive to respond to migration challenges, address global humanitarian crises, and further important foreign policy objectives in a flexible and adaptive way,' the initial complaint said. Despite the Supreme Court considering one aspect of this case, it is far from over, and could affect people from other nations. The challenge also covers Ukrainians and Afghans who arrived in the United States under Biden-era programs that have since been canceled by the Trump administration. Afghans and Cameroonians: Trump v. CASA Filed on May 7, the case focuses on the termination of temporary protections for people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. It came in response to a plan set in motion by Ms. Noem in April that would end protected status for Afghans on May 20 and then for Cameroonians on June 7. Like similar challenges, the suit argues that Congress established a clear process for ending Temporary Protected Status, and that the Department of Homeland Security cannot abruptly circumvent it. It also describes the effort as motivated by 'racial animus,' contrasting the Trump administration's targeting of individuals from 'nonwhite' countries with its efforts to remove immigration barriers for white South Africans. After the court proposed moving quickly on an expedited timeline to get ahead of the May 20 deadline for Afghan nationals, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to slow its efforts somewhat and follow the process required by Congress, according to a filing this month. Under that process, the department must afford anyone on Temporary Protected Status at least 60 extra days in the country without fear of immigration enforcement action, and only after publishing its intent to end their status in The Federal Register. Haitians: Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association v. Trump Focused more narrowly on individuals fleeing Haiti, this case highlights the grim circumstances that led to thousands of Haitians in the United States being granted Temporary Protected Status in the first place. It cites continuing gang violence and targeted killings, disease outbreaks and 'the collapse of Haiti's health care system,' and widespread starvation and homelessness as among the many factors that have resulted in the designation, and asks a judge in New York to intervene. A hearing to move the case forward is scheduled for next week, and lawyers for the plaintiffs had planned to ask the judge then to skip past a trial and summarily block any effort to immediately suspend protections for Haitians. The lawyers have argued that the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to lift protections for Venezuelans does not necessarily extend to their challenge, and asked the judge to keep the case moving. Refugees from other countries: Pacito v. Trump Though not directly related to Temporary Protected Status, the case revolves around refugees — including some from Afghanistan and a host of South and Central American countries — whose admission and resettlement in the United States has been jeopardized by other policies the Trump administration has adopted. The case challenges the decision to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which has helped refugees resettle in the United States under a law passed by Congress in 1980. A federal judge initially blocked the suspension of the program in February, and an appeals court reversed part of that decision in March. The lower court had ordered the Trump administration to move ahead and admit around 12,000 refugees who already had 'arranged and confirmable' plans to travel to the United States before Jan. 20. Last week, taking into account the appeals court's decision, the judge in that case revised that order, instead requiring the government to consider each applicant on a case-by-case basis. The judge also ordered the government to immediately 'process, admit and provide statutorily mandated resettlement support services' to 160 refugees who had plans to travel to the United States within two weeks of Jan. 20.
