The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering the legality of the “mutual” tariffs Trump has imposed on US trading partners.
Canada prepares to accept the Palestinian state, Trump applauds
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he is ready to recognize the Palestinian state if Canada complies with certain conditions.
WASHINGTON – A US Court of Appeal judge keenly questioned whether President Donald Trump’s tariffs were justified in the presidential emergency on July 31.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of the “mutual” tariffs that Trump imposed on widespread US trading partners in April, as well as the tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico in February.
After hearing the arguments in two cases brought about by five small US companies and 12 Democratic-led US states, the judge pressed government attorney Brett Schmate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Force Act (IEPA), a 1977 law historically used to approve enemy or freeze assets, gave it the power to impose tariffs.
Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.
“Yepa doesn’t even mention tariffs, he doesn’t even mention them,” one judge said.
Shumate said the law allows for “extraordinary” powers in emergencies. He said Ieepa is allowing tariffs to be allowed to allow the president to “regulate” imports in the crisis.
State and businesses challenging tariffs argued that they were not permitted under the IEEPA and that the US Constitution subsidizes Congress rather than the power over president, tariffs and other taxes.
Corporate lawyer Neil Katial said the government’s justification for tariffs “meaned a breathtaking claim to power that the president has not argued for years.”
This argument – one day before Trump plans to raise tariff charges on imports from almost all US trading partners – the US marks the first test before appealing the scope of his customs authorities. The president actively swayed them in his second term, making tariffs a central tool in his foreign policy, as a leverage in trade negotiations and to oppose what he called unfair practices.
Trump said the April tariffs are a response to US trade imbalances and lower US manufacturing capabilities.
He said tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate. Because these countries weren’t doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing the US border. The state has denied the claim.
“Taxes make America great again and again enrich it,” Trump wrote in a social media post on July 31.
During the July 31 discussion, Shumate cited the 1975 Court of Appeal ruling. This led President Richard Nixon to approve an additional fee for the 10% committee on imported goods, delaying inflation. However, the decision added that the president has no authority to impose “whatever the tariff fees he thinks would be desirable.”
Schmate also said the court cannot review the president’s actions under the IEEPA or impose additional restrictions not included in the law. Several judges said the argument would essentially allow one law, Ieepa to override all other US laws related to tariffs and imports.
The case is being heard by all panels of eight court advocated by a Democratic president and three court advocated by a former Republican president. The timing of the court’s decision is uncertain, and the loser could appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Trade negotiations
Tariffs are beginning to accumulate on a major federal revenue stream, with tariffs quadrupled to a record $27 billion in June, exceeding the $100 billion this fiscal year until June. The revenue could be important to offset lost revenue from Trump’s tax bill earlier this month.
But economists say their duties are threatening to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce profits for businesses. Trump’s repeated threats have shaken financial markets and disrupt the ability of US companies to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield is one of the states challenging taxation and said the tariffs are a “regression tax” that makes household goods even more expensive. On May 28, a panel of three judges from the US International Trade Court took sides with the democrats and small businesses that challenged Trump. Ieepa said it did not allow tariffs related to the long-standing trade deficit.
The Federal Circuit has allowed tariffs to be maintained while considering the administration’s appeal. The lawsuit does not affect tariffs imposed under more traditional legal authority, such as the obligation to import steel and aluminum. The president recently announced a trade deal that sets tariff rates for goods from the European Union and Japan following small trade agreements with the UK, Indonesia and Vietnam.
The Trump Department of Justice argued that limiting the president’s customs authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, but other Trump officials said negotiations have little changed since the initial setback in court. Trump set the August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that do not negotiate new trade deals.
There are at least seven lawsuits challenging Trump’s Yepa call, including cases brought by other small businesses and California.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. opposed Trump in one of these cases, and the judge still doesn’t support the claims of unlimited emergency customs authorities.
