Latest news with #smallbusinesses
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
‘Nuclear Verdicts' Sink Small Businesses
An alliance between personal injury lawyers and unscrupulous doctors has wreaked havoc on Texas small businesses by pinning them with massive lawsuits. The state Legislature is finally fighting back. So-called nuclear verdicts of $10 million or more in cases involving one or a few plaintiffs reached a 15-year high in 2023. Some of these verdicts were for fender-benders, and many were inflated by questionable medical bills produced by doctors and lawyers. A 2018 fender-bender in Upshur County, Texas, ballooned to a $101 million verdict. The plaintiff's personal injury lawyer had directed him to a chiropractor, pain specialist, and back surgeon who all happened to be frequent trial witnesses in the lawyer's cases.
BBC News
2 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Trump tariffs case could head to Supreme Court as soon as Friday
The Trump administration has said it will take its tariffs case to the Supreme Court Friday, unless an order that struck down many of President Donald Trump's new import taxes is put on hold. In a filing on Thursday, lawyers for the White House asked the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to block that ruling from going into response came as a second court ruled that Trump had overstepped his power in imposing the tariffs. The decisions, victories for small businesses and states that have challenged the measures, took aim at policies at the heart of Trump's economic and international agendas. They drew fury from the Trump administration, which said the rulings are examples of judicial overreach. In its appeal, the Trump administration said the decision issued Wednesday by a lower trade court had improperly second-guessed the president and threatened to unravel months of hard-fought negotiations."The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy," it said in the filing. "Absent at least interim relief from this Court, the United States plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court tomorrow to avoid the irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake." The eruption of the legal battle raised new questions about the fate of the tariffs, which have rattled the global economy since the White House started threatening the measures earlier this year. In February, Trump ordered tariffs on goods from China, Mexico and Canada, saying the move was intended to help address a fentanyl crisis. Then last month, he unveiled a blanket 10% tariff on goods from most countries around the world, with higher duties on products from certain trade partners, including the European Union and China, that it called "bad actors".The White House has since suspended parts of many of those orders, while it pursues trade negotiations. 'Power grab' To impose the tariffs in question, Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law more typically applied in cases of trade sanctions, such as those on Iran. Those challenging the case said the law did not grant him such sweeping power over trade and tax policy, traditionally the responsibility of put a spotlight on questions of the limit of presidential power, which Trump has repeatedly tested since re-entering office in Ilya Somin, who helped work on the case brought by businesses before the trade court, said he was "guardedly optimistic" that the ruling would be upheld on appeal, noting that the trade court order came from justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, including one by Trump himself. "It's not normal for the president of the United States to make such an enormous power grab and start the biggest trade war since the Great Depression," he Terry Haines, founder of the Pangaea Policy, which advises firms on Washington policies, said he thought the decision may not ultimately make a difference once higher courts take the case. "All these things are going to be litigated through and the president is probably going to be given the benefit of the doubt," he said. Business owners, while expressing relief, said they did not yet feel like the situation was resolved. "I was incredibly happy and relieved but I'm also still very cautious," said Kara Dyer, the owner of Boston-based Story Time Toys, which makes toys in China and imports them to the US for sale."It's just been so chaotic and so impossible to plan as a business," she said. "I want this to work its way through our court system so we have a little bit more certainty about what tariffs will be in the future." Analysts at Goldman Sachs and other firms said Trump was likely to look for other ways to justify tariffs, if the administration loses this case. However the process plays out, Dmitry Grozoubinski, a former trade negotiator who represented Australia at the World Trade Organization, said the decision would make it more difficult for the White House to suddenly impose tariffs, weakening Trump's ability to use the duties for leverage over other countries."It will be a lot harder for him to raise tariffs in the future," he said. "This was ultimately a negotiation in which President Trump was threatening other countries with a big stick and that stick just got considerably more ephemeral."With reporting from the BBC's World Business Report and Opening Bell.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Business
- Russia Today
US court blocks Trump's tariffs
The US Court of International Trade has ruled that President Donald Trump has no right to impose sweeping tariffs on imports under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). By invoking the legislation, the White House bypassed the need for congressional approval that would otherwise have been required to take such steps. In early April, the US president slapped a baseline 10% tariff on all imported goods, with higher rates for China, Mexico, Canada and the EU member states, citing trade imbalances. Trump has since suspended some of those measures amid ongoing negotiations. On Wednesday, the New York-based court sided with a number of small businesses that had filed lawsuits against Trump, arguing that he had overstepped his authority. According to a statement issued by the court and quoted by US media, 'the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.' However, the ruling does not affect any tariffs that Trump has imposed under different legislation, namely, Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This means that his 25% tariff on imported autos and parts as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminum will remain in place. The court ruling has noted that the US president could still slap a 15% tariff on countries with which Washington has a substantial trade deficit for 150 days, with Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 granting Trump the right to do so. The White House has filed an appeal, with US media suggesting that the US Supreme Court will likely be asked to settle the matter. In a post on X on Thursday, Stephen Miller, who serves as the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and as homeland security advisor, described the court's decision as a 'judicial coup' that has gotten 'out of control.' The judicial coup is out of control. There is a total of at least seven lawsuits, which argue that the IEEPA legislation does not authorize the use of tariffs, and that the trade deficit cited by Trump does not constitute an emergency as the US has run it for 49 consecutive years. Multiple states led by Oregon have filed similar lawsuits. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the global trade system in its current form has left the US 'looted, pillaged, raped and plundered' by other nations. The Republican has also insisted that sweeping tariffs will help to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.
Argaam
2 days ago
- Business
- Argaam
Federal trade court blocks Trump's emergency tariffs
A federal court struck down on May 28 many of the tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump, describing them as 'illegal'. A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade in Manhattan issued its ruling early Wednesday morning, marking a victory for Democratic-led states and a group of small businesses. In their lawsuit, these companies and states claimed that Trump misused the emergency law to justify the tariffs. However, the Republican President's administration can still appeal the decision before the federal court. This ruling is considered one of the biggest legal and political defeats Trump has faced so far, amid a wave of lawsuits challenging the executive orders he has issued since taking office in January. Global markets witnessed prolonged volatility when Trump announced the blanket tariffs on April 2, wiping out trillions of dollars in market value before recovering weeks later following the suspension of the higher tariffs and the beginning of trade negotiations. The court ruled that President Trump did not have the authority to impose blanket tariffs on most countries around the world — a decision that nullifies the tariffs that sparked a global trade war and threatened to destabilize the global economy. In its decision, the court noted that it does not find that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) confers such absolute authority and nullifies the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.
The National
2 days ago
- Business
- The National
US federal trade court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law
A US federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs from going into effect. The Court of International Trade in Manhattan ruled that the President overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from nations that sell more to the US than they buy. The three-judge panel said the US Constitution gives Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other countries, which cannot be overruled by the President's emergency powers to protect the economy. Mr Trump has said he has the power to act because the country's trade deficits amount to a national emergency. He imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world at one point, earlier putting levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and synthetic opioids across the US border. The moves sent markets reeling. The lawsuit, filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Centre on behalf of five small businesses that import goods from countries hit by the duties, was the first major legal challenge to Mr Trump's tariffs. The companies said the tariffs would hurt their ability to do business, and that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorise the use of tariffs. Even if it did, they said, the trade deficit does not meet the law's requirement that an emergency be caused only by an "unusual and extraordinary threat". The US has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years. The lawsuit is one of seven court challenges to Mr Trump's tariff policies, along with challenges from 13 states and other groups of small businesses. The administration is expected to appeal. It has argued that courts approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and that only Congress, and not the courts, can determine the "political" question of whether the president's rationale for declaring an emergency complies with the law.
