A United States Court of Appeals will review the power of President Donald Trump on Thursday to impose tariffs, after a lower court said that he exceeded his authority with radical levies on imported goods.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, will consider the legality of “reciprocal” tariffs that Trump imposed on a wide range of commercial partners of the United States in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.
A panel of all active judges of the Court, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican Presidents, will listen to the scheduled arguments to begin at 10 am et in two cases presented by five small US companies and 12 US states led by Democrats.
“Tariffs are causing the United States to be big and rich again,” Trump wrote in a publication on social networks on Thursday morning. “To all my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our country, good luck in the great case of the United States today.”
Tariffs are beginning to become an important source of income for the federal government, and customs tariffs in June quadrupled around 27 billion dollars, a record. This income could be crucial to compensate for the loss of income from the Trump Tax Law approved earlier this month.
But economists say that tariffs threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump’s intermittent tariff threats have agitated financial markets and interrupted the capacity of US companies to administer supply chains, production, staff and prices.
The arguments, a day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on products imported from almost all business partners in the United States, mark the first evidence before a United States Court of Appeals on the scope of its tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, erecting them aggressively in his second term as a lever in commercial negotiations and to go back what he has called unfair practices.
The states and companies that challenge tariffs argued that they are not allowed under the emergency presidential powers that Trump cited to justify them. They say that the United States Constitution grants Congress, and not to the President, authority on tariffs and other taxes.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General of Oregon, one of the states that challenge the encumbrances, said the tariffs were a “regressive tax” that is making household items more expensive.
You may be interested: Trump imposes 50% tariffs on Brazil; Excludes airplanes, orange juice and energy
Trump tariffs face a key test in the US Appeals Court
Trump demanded a wide authority to establish tariffs under the Law of International Emergency Emergency Powers (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used to sanction enemies or freeze their assets. Trump is the first president to use it to impose tariffs.
Trump has said that April tariffs were an answer to the persistent commercial imbalances of the United States and the decrease in the manufacturing power of the United States.
He said that tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to prevent illegal fentanil from crossing the borders of the United States. Countries have denied that statement.
On May 28, a panel of three judges of the United States International Court of the United States put on the side of the Democratic states and the small businesses that challenged Trump. He said that IEEPA, a law aimed at addressing “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies, did not authorize tariffs related to long -standing commercial deficits.
The Federal Circuit has allowed tariffs to remain in force while considering the appeal of the administration. The moment of the Court’s decision is uncertain, and it is likely that the loser part appears quickly before the United States Supreme Court.
The case will have no impact on tariffs collected under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
The president recently announced trade agreements that establish tariff fees on the products of the European Union and Japan, after smaller commercial agreements with Great Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. The Trump Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president’s tariff authority could undermine the current trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that the negotiations have continued with few changes after the initial upside down in the Court.
Trump has set on August 1 as a date to increase tariffs to countries that do not negotiate new commercial agreements.
There are at least seven other demands that challenge the invocation of IEEPA by Trump, including cases presented by other small businesses and California.
A federal judge in Washington, DC, failed against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet supported Trump’s statement from a unlimited emergency tariff authority.
With Reuters information.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and do not miss our content
