Latest news with #CIT
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court now has a chance to have the final say on Trump's tariffs
The Supreme Court is being asked by two toy companies to rule on the legal fight over President Trump's tariffs, giving the nation's highest court the chance to determine whether the president has the authority to enact some of his most aggressive trade policies. That key question hangs in the balance after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) sided in May with a group of small businesses that argued Trump lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., which has allowed Trump's tariffs to stay in force while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the duties. Oral arguments are scheduled to start on July 31. But now two toy companies that filed a separate tariff lawsuit against Trump — Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc. — have asked the Supreme Court to consider their case and put it on a fast track. In recent terms, this court has allowed prompt review in cases of similarly (or less) far-reaching political and economic Importance. All of the challengers to Trump's tariffs are arguing that the administration's basis for the duties — a national emergency caused by illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — was unauthorized because it did not directly address the stated emergency. 'Whether the President has authority to impose tariffs…is of such imperative importance that it warrants review now,' the toy companies said in their Tuesday filing to the Supreme Court. The toy companies have already won a victory before US District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington but the decision was narrow in scope. Trump appealed it and now the companies want to skip that battle and go directly to the nation's highest court. The companies want the Supreme Court to decide on whether to take this case before its summer recess starts near the end of this month, setting up possible arguments in the fall. They argue in their petition to the court that an analysis by JPMorgan shows the round of Trump tariffs at issue 'would hike taxes on Americans by $660 billion a year, the largest tax increase in recent memory by a longshot,' and 'cause prices to surge' by 'adding 2% to the Consumer Price Index.' Since the beginning of the year, the tariff onslaught has caused 'the nation's overall average effective tariff rate' to jump from '2.5 percent' to 'around 27 percent'—more than a tenfold increase, and 'the highest for the U.S. in more than a century.' Legal experts have long predicted that the legality of Trump's tariff justifications would eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. That could mean the Trump administration will have to grapple with the hurdle of the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. Trump's legal team is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to eventually stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. And Nixon's duties also suffered an initial defeat. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome the Trump administration has cited in court documents, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court now has a chance to have the final say on Trump's tariffs
The Supreme Court is being asked by two toy companies to rule on the legal fight over President Trump's tariffs, giving the nation's highest court the chance to determine whether the president has the authority to enact some of his most aggressive trade policies. That key question hangs in the balance after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) sided in May with a group of small businesses that argued Trump lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., which has allowed Trump's tariffs to stay in force while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the duties. Oral arguments are scheduled to start on July 31. But now two toy companies that filed a separate tariff lawsuit against Trump — Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc. — have asked the Supreme Court to consider their case and put it on a fast track. In recent terms, this court has allowed prompt review in cases of similarly (or less) far-reaching political and economic Importance. All of the challengers to Trump's tariffs are arguing that the administration's basis for the duties — a national emergency caused by illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — was unauthorized because it did not directly address the stated emergency. 'Whether the President has authority to impose tariffs…is of such imperative importance that it warrants review now,' the toy companies said in their Tuesday filing to the Supreme Court. The toy companies have already won a victory before US District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington but the decision was narrow in scope. Trump appealed it and now the companies want to skip that battle and go directly to the nation's highest court. The companies want the Supreme Court to decide on whether to take this case before its summer recess starts near the end of this month, setting up possible arguments in the fall. They argue in their petition to the court that an analysis by JPMorgan shows the round of Trump tariffs at issue 'would hike taxes on Americans by $660 billion a year, the largest tax increase in recent memory by a longshot,' and 'cause prices to surge' by 'adding 2% to the Consumer Price Index.' Since the beginning of the year, the tariff onslaught has caused 'the nation's overall average effective tariff rate' to jump from '2.5 percent' to 'around 27 percent'—more than a tenfold increase, and 'the highest for the U.S. in more than a century.' Legal experts have long predicted that the legality of Trump's tariff justifications would eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. That could mean the Trump administration will have to grapple with the hurdle of the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. Trump's legal team is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to eventually stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. And Nixon's duties also suffered an initial defeat. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome the Trump administration has cited in court documents, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Two TTEs suspended after bribery video on Sangam Express goes viral
A case of bribery involving seat allotment on the Sangam Express, running from Prayagraj to Meerut, has come to light after a video went viral on social media. The video shows TTEs accepting money from passengers while assigning seats. Following a complaint made by the passenger to the Railway Minister on X, the Prayagraj DRM suspended both TTEs involved. Dr Vishal Sharma, head of the department of Journalism at CSJM University, Kanpur, who shared the video on social media platform X, alleged that during his journey from Kanpur to Meerut on Saturday night, the TTE not only took a bribe from him but was also illegally selling seats to other passengers in violation of railway rules. According to Dr Sharma, he was travelling on a general ticket and requested the TTE to upgrade it to a reserved ticket. Initially, the TTE delayed the process and allegedly demanded ₹700, which he paid. However, he claimed that no receipt was provided to him for the amount, even by the time he reached his destination in Meerut. Meanwhile, a woman passenger travelling in the AC 3-tier coach reported that seat number 33 in M1 coach was vacant. During this time, the second TTE allegedly demanded a ₹800 bribe and allotted the seat after accepting ₹700. Another passenger captured the transaction on video, showing the TTE taking money in exchange for the seat. However, after reaching Meerut and not receiving a receipt for the money he had paid, Dr. Sharma shared the video on Instagram and lodged a complaint by tagging the railway minister, DRM, and other relevant officials. Following the video going viral, Prayagraj DRM Rajneesh Agarwal suspended both TTEs — Sushil Kumar (CIT) and Hitendra Singh (Deputy CIT). He also shared information about the action taken in the matter through a post on Instagram. According to Amit Kumar Singh, PRO of the Prayagraj division, action was taken against both TTEs after the video of the incident went viral. He added that an investigation into the matter is currently underway.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US appeals court keeps Trump tariffs in place while it considers a legal fight of 'exceptional importance'
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday night that President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs could stay in force while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the duties. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. granted the administration's request to let the tariffs stand pending a review of a decision made by a lower court to invalidate the levies. "The court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances," the judges wrote in the order. The court set an expedited schedule for the dispute and ordered the administration and its challengers to be prepared for oral arguments on July 31. The court noted the decision on the stay was made by the court's full panel of judges, aside from those recused or disqualified from considering the issue. And because the dispute over the president's authority to invoke the tariffs raised issues of "exceptional importance," its full panel of judges would also decide the merits of the case. The president is seeking a definitive legal victory from the appeals court after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) said in May that he lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The group of importers and Democratic-led states that prevailed in the trade court argued that the administration's basis for the tariffs — a national emergency caused by illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — was unauthorized because it did not directly address the stated emergency. That decision was temporarily put on hold by the federal appeals court, and the administration argued in a court document Monday that reimposing the CIT's injunction that invalidated the tariffs would risk "irreparable economic and national security harms." "The injunction unilaterally diminishes America's bargaining position during sensitive trade negotiations, encouraging other countries to hold our nation hostage," the administration said. The CIT's decision, it said, usurped political choices, putting the judiciary in a central role in managing foreign negotiations, the national economy, and national security. In addition, the administration said, it would likely prevail over the lower court's ruling on appeal because the lower court misapplied the text of the IEEPA. That court's interpretation of the law would "unnaturally cabin" the president's tariff authority, the administration said. The CIT ruled that the president lacked power under IEEPA to impose the duties, saying "any interpretation" of IEEPA "that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." Legal experts expect this case to eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. That could mean the Trump administration will have to grapple with the hurdle of the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. Trump's legal team is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to eventually stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. And Nixon's duties also suffered an initial defeat. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome the Trump administration has cited in court documents, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It has told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US appeals court keeps Trump tariffs in place while it considers a legal fight of 'exceptional importance'
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday night that President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs could stay in force while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the duties. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. granted the administration's request to let the tariffs stand pending a review of a decision made by a lower court to invalidate the levies. "The court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances," the judges wrote in the order. The court set an expedited schedule for the dispute and ordered the administration and its challengers to be prepared for oral arguments on July 31. The court noted the decision on the stay was made by the court's full panel of judges, aside from those recused or disqualified from considering the issue. And because the dispute over the president's authority to invoke the tariffs raised issues of "exceptional importance," its full panel of judges would also decide the merits of the case. The president is seeking a definitive legal victory from the appeals court after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) said in May that he lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The group of importers and Democratic-led states that prevailed in the trade court argued that the administration's basis for the tariffs — a national emergency caused by illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — was unauthorized because it did not directly address the stated emergency. That decision was temporarily put on hold by the federal appeals court, and the administration argued in a court document Monday that reimposing the CIT's injunction that invalidated the tariffs would risk "irreparable economic and national security harms." "The injunction unilaterally diminishes America's bargaining position during sensitive trade negotiations, encouraging other countries to hold our nation hostage," the administration said. The CIT's decision, it said, usurped political choices, putting the judiciary in a central role in managing foreign negotiations, the national economy, and national security. In addition, the administration said, it would likely prevail over the lower court's ruling on appeal because the lower court misapplied the text of the IEEPA. That court's interpretation of the law would "unnaturally cabin" the president's tariff authority, the administration said. The CIT ruled that the president lacked power under IEEPA to impose the duties, saying "any interpretation" of IEEPA "that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." Legal experts expect this case to eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. That could mean the Trump administration will have to grapple with the hurdle of the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. Trump's legal team is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to eventually stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. And Nixon's duties also suffered an initial defeat. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome the Trump administration has cited in court documents, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It has told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
