It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal trade court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.
The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump has exceeded his authority and left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims. But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.
The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump’s signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The ruling faces certain appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency.
He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America’s massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.
The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive. A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
The United States Court of International Trade
Edit: The ruling was Per Curiam, meaning that it was written on behalf of the full court.
goodnews tomorrow? Stocks? Bonds? Gold?"More details are needed," Rodrigo Catril, a strategist at National Australia Bank Ltd. in Sydney said in reference to the ruling. "Particularly whether there is an injunction or whether this goes to an appeal process and tariffs remain in place for now. The best guess at this stage is that the administration has enough powers to bypass the ruling and implement tariffs on several grounds " (Reported by Bloomberg)
”US stock futures jumped and the dollar strengthened after President Donald Trump's global tariffs were deemed illegal and blocked by the US trade court … Contracts for the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 gained 1.4% and 1.7% respectively. The yen declined 0.7% and oil jumped. Shares in Nvidia rose over 5% in post-market trading in New York after the company delivered a solid revenue forecast. Equities in Japan and South Korea advanced at the open.”
"The news out of the US could see some significant downside for gold in the sessions ahead as haven trades are pulled," said Nick Twidale, chief market analyst at AT Global Markets in Sydney, adding that prices could unwind further in the current trading session before finding some support. ”
twittweet you forgot to work in how this is all Biden's fault. Or is that just implied at this stage of nonsense?by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' the court wrote,
referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act."
The Trump administration alleges the trade deficit constitutes a national emergency.
Our country has run a trade deficit for 49 consecutive years.
Trump claims he has broad authority to set tariffs via the IEEPA.
In the past, the IEEPA was used to impose sanctions on U.S. enemies or freeze their assets.
No prior U.S. president has invoked this law to impose tariffs.
The US is going to war with Greenland in 3....2.....1...
my hometown since the 82nd airborne Division invaded Detroit in 1967. “Should be wild” the moron famously said.
I hear they, Wall St. , calls this the Taco trade.
The large deficit is not solved with the tariffs for sure, but is is getting bigger and bigger with the news tax cut bill. I will be watching the bond market and the dollar since he cannot manipulates them readily.
He got irritated at the reporter. "Six month ago, this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country people didn't think it was going to survive. And you ask a nasty question like that."
Alternative facts, I guess.
One can attribute the 1Q25 dip in GDP to a distortion due to tariffs - businesses rapidly importing products to beat the tariffs. But then one would also need to acknowledge a likely dearth of products and commensurate inflation going forward.
Now that tariffs are, at least partially and for the moment, off the table, are domestic distributors overstocked and more generally what do people expect of prices over the next few weeks if not months?
These particular tariffs were not implemented via the IEEPA.
Unfortunately, Trump could deploy other laws to impose tariffs.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-else-can-trump-do-global-tariffs-after-us-court-ruling-2025-05-29/
Perhaps initially. But there’s a larger issue of whether Congress can constitutionally delegate away to another branch of government an authority they are granted under the Constitution. Could Congress, for instance, delegate their Constitutional powers to impeach high officials or declare war to the executive branch? Could they delegated their power to levy and collect taxes to the judiciary?
From the Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 : "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.
This will end up in the S.C. We’re in for some really interesting judicial proceedings, outcomes, precedents over the next couple years. I had trouble with Peter Navarro’s comments on BB this morning that the courts are engaged in a systematic “attack on the American people” along with his assertion that we are presently in the midst of a “national emergency” because China has (allegedly) killed millions of Americans in recent years through some technological bio attack (Covid I guess).
The impact on markets? After a hot start in the early morning, major U.S. markets recoiled and are up only slightly. Gold, which first fell on the news last evening, is now positive on the day by nearly 2%.
Well, now that debt-ceiling fiasco is a regular drama in DC.
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
But he doesn't have the ability to admit to himself that this isn't going to work out well. Backing down would be showing you are "weak".
Logic and common sense are not strong points there.
The answer to what Congress can delegate is "it depends". My take is that the more intrinsic a power is to Congress (whatever that means) the less able it is to delegate that power.
Findlaw, Can Congress Delegate Its Power? https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html
As to why the Supreme Court would probably be satisified if Congress simply delegated their tariff power to the President, the answer lies in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Truman steel mills case). https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C1-5/ALDE_00013794/
With respect to the debt ceiling, as Yogi noted Congress originally authorized each debt offering. In WW1, recognizing that this was unwieldy, Congress delegated discretion on how to borrow money (e.g. long vs. short). But it did not, and perhaps cannot, delegate its fundamental power to borrow money. Hence the debt ceiling. https://goodauthority.org/news/why-do-we-have-a-debt-ceiling/
Finally, an observation: Congress does not seem especially happy with the tariffs. GOP members are concerned about their jobs should tariffs remain in place. Congress might not explicitly delegate tariff power (assuming that such delegation is deemed constitutional).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-tariffs-stoke-concerns-that-republicans-can-kiss-goodbye-to-their-majority-in-2026-152815014.html
(I subscribe to Mr. Levine's newsletter, but unfortunately, I can't provide a link to that.)
Meanwhile, no one knows from one day to the next what's going to land on our shores or how much its cargo will cost - now that the administration has acknowledged that China isn't going to be the one paying the tariffs (see Walmart) and Mexico isn't going to be the one paying for the wall ($46.5B - check out the Big Beautiful Bill).
How would you like to be running a business, whether a mom-and-pop or a major manufacturer, having to navigate this?
If you keep screaming the house is on fire 100 times about everything...you can complete the sentence.