Trump says court got it wrong after emergency tariffs ruled illegal

A ￰0￱ court on Friday found that most of Donald Trump’s tariffs violate the law, weakening a key piece of the Republican president’s trade ￰1￱ panel left the levies in place until October 14 so the administration can seek review by the ￰2￱ ￰3￱ after the decision, Trump said in a Truthsocial post that the tariffs remain in place and vowed to keep them despite the ￰4￱ argued the appeals court was wrong and predicted the Supreme Court would ultimately side with his ￰5￱ warned that ending the tariffs would hurt the U. S. economy, saying they are needed to counter large trade deficits and what he calls unfair foreign tariffs and non-tariff ￰6￱ said the measures protect American manufacturers, farmers, and other ￰7￱ have been central to Trump’s foreign policy in his second ￰8￱ has used them to press trading partners and to seek new terms on goods sold into the United ￰9￱ steps have given Washington leverage for economic concessions, while also adding to market ￰10￱ says emergency law does not include tariff powers In its opinion, the court said the emergency statute the administration relied on does not grant taxing power .

“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax,” the court wrote as per ￰11￱ case was decided by the ￰12￱ of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, ￰13￱ panel reviewed the legality of what Trump has called “reciprocal” tariffs announced in April as part of his trade fight, as well as a separate round from February aimed at China, Canada and ￰14￱ ruling does not touch measures issued under other laws, including the administration’s tariffs on steel and aluminum ￰15￱ defended both rounds, and newer ones, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows a president to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national ￰16￱ judges concluded that Congress did not grant tariff authority when it passed that law.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the opinion said. “The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs.” Passed in 1977, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze assets, not to set border ￰17￱ is the first president to invoke IEEPA for tariffs, saying the steps were needed because of trade imbalances, reduced ￰18￱ strength and the flow of drugs across ￰19￱ Department argued emergency powers allow trade restrictions The Justice Department argued in court that IEEPA’s emergency powers include the ability to “regulate” imports or stop them entirely, which in its view permits the use of ￰20￱ declared a national emergency in April, citing decades of trade deficits and arguing that continued shortfalls weaken ￰21￱ and military ￰22￱ said the February tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico were justified because those governments were not doing enough to curb illegal fentanyl reaching the United States, a claim the three countries have ￰23￱ appeals court ruled on two cases at ￰24￱ filed by five small ￰25￱ and another from 12 Democratic-led ￰26￱ challenged the use of IEEPA for ￰27￱ said the Constitution assigns Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that any handoff of that power must be clear and ￰28￱ federal court in Washington has also concluded that IEEPA does not authorize Trump’s tariffs, and the government has appealed that ￰29￱ all, at least eight lawsuits have been filed against the administration’s tariff program, including one brought by the state of ￰30￱ $50 free to trade crypto when you sign up to Bybit now