The first federal court hearing on Trump's tariffs did not go so well for Trump
A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump's wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.
It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration's claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.
Many of the judges' questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods.
That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court's eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs.
At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs.
That statute permits the president to 'regulate' transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only 'to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' It is likely that the trade court's decision will turn on what the words 'unusual and extraordinary threat' means. While Yoshida offered guidance on 'regulate,' there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean.
In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat 'large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits' — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it's far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.'
Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which 'threats' are 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.
That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a 'political question' — a legal term meaning that the courts aren't allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is 'no limit' to the president's power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.
The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton's arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.
Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to 'regulate' does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.
That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.
Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a 'very different situation' that was both 'new' and 'extraordinary.' For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the 'Nixon shock.' When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.
Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That's a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump's tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.
Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs 'must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.' Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.
Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as 'dumping,' when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.
That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' Hamilton's suggestion that courts can't decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA's 'unusual and extraordinary' provision would be entirely 'superfluous' if Congress hadn't intended courts to enforce it.
Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump's tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there's no need to come up with a broader legal rule. 'You know it when you see it doesn't work,' she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart's infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.
The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration's argument for the tariffs. But it's not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.
Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it's not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power.
Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to 'impose duties or other import restrictions' after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.
There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as 'major questions' and 'nondelegation' — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump's authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration's actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.
Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.' This 'intelligible principle' test is famously very deferential to Congress.
Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.
The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must 'speak clearly' if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of 'vast 'economic and political significance.'' By some estimates, Trump's tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that's certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA's language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.
Hamilton's primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.
Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs.
That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question. But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday's hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Botches His Own Name In The Most Awkward Typo You'll Ever See
President Donald Trump on Sunday posted a message on his Truth Social website thanking the B-2 pilots who took part in this weekend's attack on Iran. But the president's message had one key flaw: He misspelled his own name. 'The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri. Thank you for a job well done!!!' Trump wrote, then signed his message in all caps: 'DONAKD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!' Trump deleted the message and replaced it with a corrected version, but a website that archives his posts shows the typo. Trump has a long and colorful history of typo-ridden social media posts, including the infamous 'covfefe' message of 2017, along with his references to a 'stollen' election, 'Wirch Hunt,' and 'hamberders.' He's bungled his own name before, referring to himself in 2019 as 'Donald Ttump,' and that of his wife, whom he called 'Melanie' Trump in 2018. It's not clear if Trump typed the message himself. A former aide, Madeleine Westerhout, testified during his criminal trial last year that when Trump was on Twitter, he preferred to dictate his messages, down to his trademark use of capitalizations and exclamation points. Footage released last year also showed him dictating and supervising his social media posts. Trump's critics called him out over the awkward typo:
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Should You Investigate QES Group Berhad (KLSE:QES) At RM0.36?
QES Group Berhad (KLSE:QES), is not the largest company out there, but it saw significant share price movement during recent months on the KLSE, rising to highs of RM0.48 and falling to the lows of RM0.34. Some share price movements can give investors a better opportunity to enter into the stock, and potentially buy at a lower price. A question to answer is whether QES Group Berhad's current trading price of RM0.36 reflective of the actual value of the small-cap? Or is it currently undervalued, providing us with the opportunity to buy? Let's take a look at QES Group Berhad's outlook and value based on the most recent financial data to see if there are any catalysts for a price change. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. According to our price multiple model, which makes a comparison between the company's price-to-earnings ratio and the industry average, the stock price seems to be justfied. We've used the price-to-earnings ratio in this instance because there's not enough visibility to forecast its cash flows. The stock's ratio of 19.08x is currently trading slightly above its industry peers' ratio of 18.46x, which means if you buy QES Group Berhad today, you'd be paying a relatively sensible price for it. And if you believe that QES Group Berhad should be trading at this level in the long run, then there should only be a fairly immaterial downside vs other industry peers. So, is there another chance to buy low in the future? Given that QES Group Berhad's share is fairly volatile (i.e. its price movements are magnified relative to the rest of the market) this could mean the price can sink lower, giving us an opportunity to buy later on. This is based on its high beta, which is a good indicator for share price volatility. Check out our latest analysis for QES Group Berhad Future outlook is an important aspect when you're looking at buying a stock, especially if you are an investor looking for growth in your portfolio. Although value investors would argue that it's the intrinsic value relative to the price that matter the most, a more compelling investment thesis would be high growth potential at a cheap price. Though in the case of QES Group Berhad, it is expected to deliver a relatively unexciting earnings growth of 5.1%, which doesn't help build up its investment thesis. Growth doesn't appear to be a main reason for a buy decision for QES Group Berhad, at least in the near term. Are you a shareholder? It seems like the market has already priced in QES's growth outlook, with shares trading around industry price multiples. However, there are also other important factors which we haven't considered today, such as the financial strength of the company. Have these factors changed since the last time you looked at QES? Will you have enough conviction to buy should the price fluctuate below the industry PE ratio? Are you a potential investor? If you've been keeping tabs on QES, now may not be the most optimal time to buy, given it is trading around industry price multiples. However, the positive growth outlook may mean it's worth diving deeper into other factors in order to take advantage of the next price drop. Keep in mind, when it comes to analysing a stock it's worth noting the risks involved. For example, we've discovered 2 warning signs that you should run your eye over to get a better picture of QES Group Berhad. If you are no longer interested in QES Group Berhad, you can use our free platform to see our list of over 50 other stocks with a high growth potential. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
The Disrespect: Trump Disregards Juneteenth, Says US Has ‘Too Many Non-Working Holidays'
Source: MANDEL NGAN / Getty Black MAGA, y'all alright? Donald Trump has once again shown us who he is, the most un-American, unproductive, and unapologetically divisive figure ever elected to the highest office in the land, who has the audacity to complain about 'non-working' holidays—namely, Juneteenth. On Thursday (Jun 19), as Black Americans celebrated Juneteenth, commemorating the end of chattel slavery in the United States, Trump didn't issue a statement, attend an event, or offer even a hollow gesture of recognition. Instead, he took to his communication platform, Truth Social, to complain that America has 'too many non-working holidays,' intentionally ignoring one of the most historically significant dates for our community. 'Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed,' Trump said Thursday on Truth Social without explicitly mentioning Juneteenth. Allow me to say the quiet part out loud: This wasn't an oversight; it was an intentional and calculated decision to disrespect. While Trump spent the holiday doing nothing, former President Joe Biden spent the day honoring Juneteenth at the exact site where Union soldiers arrived in 1865 to inform more than 250,000 enslaved people of their freedom, Reedy Chapel AME Church in Galveston, Texas. It's a stark contrast moment that shows the difference between honoring American history and actively trying to erase it. According to the White House, Trump had initially planned to sign a proclamation recognizing Juneteenth, but that plan was quietly scrapped without explanation after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the administration was 'working 24/7' before dismissing the need for a Juneteenth proclamation altogether. 'I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today,' she said. 'I know this is a federal holiday.' What's more disrespectful is that this is the same administration that uses Black people as props while refusing to protect Black life or recognize Black history. Whether it's photo ops with Black pastors, staged roundtables with cherry-picked community 'leaders,' lying on us with fake stats, or parading out HUD Secretary Scott Turner for cover, Trump's playbook is always the same: surround yourself with Black faces while ignoring Black voices. And let's talk directly to the 30% of Black voters who proudly say they support Trump. This is what you're co-signing—a man who weaponizes the Black struggle when it suits his narrative and ignores it when it requires decorum. Trump claims to have 'made Juneteenth famous' in 2020, as if generations of Black Americans haven't been celebrating the day with parades, cookouts, and sacred remembrance for over a century, only to pretend a few years later that it doesn't matter—and that's the bigger issue. Trump's rejection of Juneteenth isn't just disrespectful; it's part of a much larger and more dangerous pattern by an elderly man who's waging war on DEI initiatives, rewriting curriculum to exclude critical race theory, and gutting federal protections for Black workers. And let's not forget, Trump had no problem announcing two new holidays, Victory Days for both world wars — including one that already exists as Veterans Day, but Juneteenth is suddenly too costly, because it's too Black. It's clear that Trump's disregard for Juneteenth is not about the number of holidays, but instead about denying the truth of America's past to protect the illusion of its innocence and solidifying to his base that acknowledging Black liberation is optional. Deepak Sarma, inaugural distinguished scholar in the public humanities at Case Western Reserve University, told HuffPost that Trump's reversal on Juneteenth this year shows that his political strategies embrace 'cruelty,' and that he employed a 'bait-and-switch' in an attempt to woo Black supporters; noting that Trump is 'appealing only to his MAGA constituents, many of whom were covert, and now are overt, racists,' and he has discarded the concerns of his Black supporters. 'This is consistent with his Machiavellian political philosophy, which embraces deception, cruelty, and immorality to achieve his selfish goals,' Sarma told the publication. '[Rejecting] DEI, embracing pro-life, utilizing ICE, are all ways to cater to MAGA voters.' Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has done more to dismantle Black progress than almost any president in modern history. From banning DEI programs to banning books about Black history, his record speaks louder than his silence ever could. So yes, Trump's refusal to acknowledge Juneteenth is disrespectful; it's also entirely on brand, serving as a reminder that his presidency is built on white grievance, historical revisionism, and the suppression of truth. SEE ALSO: Thanks To Donald Trump, The American Dream Is Dead Donald Trump, Executive Overreach, And Project 2025's Blueprint SEE ALSO The Disrespect: Trump Disregards Juneteenth, Says US Has 'Too Many Non-Working Holidays' was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
