Latest news with #legalexperts
Fox News
04-08-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Trump's tariff power grab barrels toward Supreme Court
A federal court fight over President Donald Trump's authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court for review, legal experts told Fox News Digital, in a case that has already proved to be a pivotal test of executive branch authority. At issue in the case is Trump's ability to use a 1977 emergency law to unilaterally slap steep import duties on a long list of countries doing business with the U.S. In interviews with Fox News Digital, longtime trade lawyers and lawyers who argued on behalf of plaintiffs in court last week said they expect the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a matter of "weeks," or sometime in August or September – in line with the court's agreement to hear the case on an "expedited" basis. The fast-track timeline reflects the important question before the court: whether Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he launched his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs. Importantly, that timing would still allow the Supreme Court to add the case to their docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins in early October. That could allow them to rule on the matter as early as the end of the year. Both Trump administration officials and lawyers for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if the lower court does not rule in their favor. And given the questions at the heart of the case, it is widely expected that the high court will take up the case for review. In the meantime, the impact of Trump's tariffs remains to be seen. Legal experts and trade analysts alike said last week's hearing is unlikely to forestall the broader market uncertainty created by Trump's tariffs, which remain in force after the appeals court agreed to stay a lower court decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade. Judges on the three-judge CIT panel in May blocked Trump's use of IEEPA to stand up his tariffs, ruling unanimously that he did not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under that law. Thursday's argument gave little indication as to how the appeals court would rule, plaintiffs and longtime trade attorneys told Fox News Digital, citing the tough questions that the 11 judges on the panel posed for both parties. Dan Pickard, an attorney specializing in international trade and national security issues at the firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said the oral arguments Thursday did not seem indicative of how the 11-judge panel might rule. "I don't know if I walked out of that hearing thinking that either the government is going to prevail, or that this is dead on arrival," Pickard told Fox News Digital. "I think it was more mixed." Lawyers for the plaintiffs echoed that assessment – a reflection of the 11 judges on the appeals bench, who had fewer chances to speak up or question the government or plaintiffs during the 45 minutes each had to present their case. "I want to be very clear that I'm not in any way, shape or form, predicting what the Federal Circuit will do – I leave that for them," one lawyer for the plaintiffs told reporters after court, adding that the judges, in his view, posed "really tough questions" for both parties. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who helped represent the 12 states suing over the plan, told Fox News Digital they are "optimistic" that, based on the oral arguments, they would see at least a partial win in the case, though he also stressed the ruling and the time frame is fraught with uncertainty. In the interim, the White House forged ahead with enacting Trump's tariffs as planned. Pickard, who has argued many cases before the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, noted that the oral arguments are not necessarily the best barometer for gauging the court's next steps – something lawyers for the plaintiffs also stressed after the hearing. Even if the high court blocks the Trump administration from using IEEPA, they have a range of other trade tools at their disposal, trade lawyers told Fox News. The Trump administration "has had more of a focus on trade issues than pretty much any other administration in my professional life," Pickard said. "And let's assume, even for the sake of the argument, just hypothetically, that the Supreme Court says this use of IEEPA exceeded your statutory authority. The Trump administration is not going to say, like, 'All right, well, we're done. I guess we're just going to abandon any trade policy.' "There are going to be additional [trade] tools that had been in the toolbox for long that can be taken out and dusted off," he said. "There are plenty of other legal authorities for the president. "I don't think we're seeing an end to these issues anytime soon – this is going to continue to be battled out in the courts for a while." Both Pickard and Rayfield told Fox News Digital in separate interviews that they expect the appeals court to rule within weeks, not days. The hearing came after Trump on April 2 announced a 10% baseline tariff on all countries, along with higher, reciprocal tariffs targeting select nations, including China. The measures, he said, were aimed at addressing trade imbalances, reducing deficits with key trading partners, and boosting domestic manufacturing and production. Ahead of last week's oral arguments, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said lawyers for the administration would continue to defend the president's trade agenda in court. Justice Department attorneys "are going to court to defend [Trump's] tariffs," she said, describing them as "transforming the global economy, protecting our national security and addressing the consequences of our exploding trade deficit." "We will continue to defend the president," she vowed.
The Independent
07-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
The problem with Trump's $5m ‘gold card' visa
Donald Trump proposed a "Trump Card" offering a fast track to legal status for wealthy immigrants investing $5 million, with a prototype shown in April and a website launched in June. However, legal experts have expressed significant scepticism about the card's legality, asserting that the president cannot unilaterally create new visa categories or alter tax laws without an act of Congress. The initiative, which Treasury Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested could generate up to $1 trillion, aims to replace or supplement the existing EB-5 visa programme. It would controversially exempt holders from federal income tax on foreign earnings. Despite over 70,000 expressions of interest, the feasibility of the "Trump Card" is questioned due to legal hurdles and the limited pool of potential applicants, many of whom already reside in the United States.
CTV News
28-05-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Turkiye's Erdogan appoints legal team to draft new constitution, sparking fears of extended rule
ANKARA, Turkey — ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday he has appointed a team of legal experts to start working on a new constitution — which critics say could allow him to remain in power beyond 2028, when his current term ends. Erdogan, who has led Turkiye as president since 2014 and was prime minister for more than a decade before that, has advocated for a new constitution arguing that the current one, which was drafted following a military coup in 1980, is outdated and retains elements of military influence even though it was amended several times. 'As of yesterday, I have assigned 10 legal experts to begin their work, and with this effort, we will proceed with the preparations for the new constitution,' Erdogan told his ruling party's local administrators in a speech. 'For 23 years, we have repeatedly demonstrated our sincere intention to crown our democracy with a new civilian and libertarian constitution.' Under the current constitution, Erdogan cannot run again unless early elections are called or the legal framework is changed. Critics see the push for a new constitution as a possible path for re-election, allowing legal changes that would bypass the constitutional term limits. Erdogan, who has grown increasingly authoritarian over the years, has denied seeking a new constitution in order to remain in power, saying last week 'we want the new constitution not for ourselves, but our country.' Erdogan's ruling party and its nationalist allies lack the votes needed to usher in a new constitution. Some analysts believe the government's recent effort to end the decades-long conflict with the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, is part of strategy to gain the support of a pro-Kurdish party in parliament for the new charter. The effort to introduce a new constitution comes months after Ekrem Imamoglu, the popular mayor of Istanbul and a key Erdogan rival, was arrested and jailed on corruption charges. His arrest has been widely viewed as politically motivated although the government insists Turkiye's judiciary is independent and free of political influence. It triggered widespread demonstrations calling for his release and an end to Turkiye's democratic backsliding under Erdogan.
Al Jazeera
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court grills Trump administration over birthright citizenship
Washington, DC – Justices at the US Supreme Court have questioned lawyers representing the administration of US President Donald Trump and those challenging his effort to end birthright citizenship in the country. The hearing on Thursday represented the first time the top court in the United States has heard a case related to Trump's January 20 order seeking to do away with the more-than-century-old policy, which grants citizenship to nearly all infants born on US soil, regardless of their parents' legal status. It was not immediately clear when the court would issue a ruling in the case, although an outcome could take weeks. It also remained unclear if the justices would address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, or if they would only rule on the narrower question of whether lower federal court justices are empowered to block the implementation of the order nationwide. Still, demonstrators and lawmakers who gathered outside of the Washington, DC courthouse said any ruling challenging birthright citizenship would corrode the national fabric of the US. 'We are here at the highest court in the land because a fundamental promise of America is under attack. And we are here to say not on our watch,' Ama Frimpong, the legal director of CASA, told those gathered in protest. 'All persons born in the US are citizens of the US,' Frimpong said. Legal experts have also said a ruling limiting federal courts' ability to order a 'national' or 'universal' injunction to block Trump's executive actions would in and of itself be transformative. 'That question, in a normal sense, would already shake the legal foundation of the country: whether lower courts have the right to order nationwide injunctions,' said Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou-Castro from outside the courthouse. 'But it's the second question that really people are focused on, and that is if Trump has the power to cancel birthright citizenship for the children born to undocumented immigrants and certain visa holders visiting the US,' she said. 'Now it is up to the justices whether they want to go in either of those directions.' Over two hours of questioning, lawyers for the Trump administration, as well as those representing states and individuals who have challenged Trump's order, addressed matters both of constitutional grandeur and legal minutia. Solicitor General John Sauer began by laying out the Trump administration's broad argument that the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has been incorrectly interpreted since then. The amendment, Sauer argued, 'guarantees citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors'. Trump also reiterated that position in a Truth Social post ahead of the hearing, saying birthright citizenship makes the US a 'STUPID Country' that incentivises people to visit to have children. Sauer also took aim at the three federal judges who have ruled in favour of separate lawsuits challenging the law's constitutionality. Plaintiffs in those cases include 22 state attorneys general, immigrant rights organisations, and individuals affected by the rule. Sauer argued that the judges' decisions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the cases, and not the entire nation. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the broader constitutional question could be unpicked from the narrower question of the judges' reach, saying the president's order violates 'by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents'. That included the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, which first established that the 14th Amendment applies to immigrants, she said. Other justices questioned the implications of a scenario where the court ruled that the judges could not issue 'national injunctions' in the case, without answering the underlying constitutional question. Legal scholars have noted that this could create a situation where Trump's end to birthright citizenship would not apply to states and individuals who successfully challenged his order in court. That would mean birthright citizenship – at least temporarily – would end in 28 other states if they do launch their own challenges. 'Does every single person that is affected by this EO [executive order] have to bring their own suit?' Justice Elena Kagan questioned. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument turns the US justice system into a 'catch me if you can kind of regime'. Under that, 'everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights'.
Times
15-05-2025
- Health
- Times
Assisted dying bill must now be killed off
Scarcely has a piece of legislation been about to become law amid such dire warnings. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons on Friday, when MPs will decide whether to allow the legalisation of assisted dying to proceed. In the earlier stages of this bill fears were voiced about the lack of safeguarding to avoid abuses such as coercion. Legal experts expressed their worries that the poorly drafted text would provide a starting point for eventual mission creep in assisted suicide rather than defining strict limits on its use. Since the bill was given the initial approval by MPs last November, these fears have only grown. Some are due to the haphazard nature of the legislation: such
