Latest news with #IEEPA
CNBC
an hour ago
- Business
- CNBC
Supreme Court rejects fast track of Trump tariff challenge by toy companies
Key Points President Donald Trump's tariffs, a key part of his trade agenda, have drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority to implement the high levies. The Supreme Court ruling gives the Trump administration more time to file its response to the challenge from two toy companies. The two toy companies argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give Trump the authority to implement his tariffs. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from two toy companies to expedite their challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The ruling from the nation's high court means that the Trump administration now has the standard 30-day window to file its response to the challenge. Two small family-owned companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, argued that Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his April 2 tariffs. The companies earlier this week asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of their challenge and bypass a federal appeals court. "In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process," the companies argued in their request. Rick Woldenberg, the chairman and CEO of Learning Resource and hand2mind, told CNBC that the Friday Supreme Court decision "was a disappointment but honestly just another twist in the road." "You want to win every motion but sometimes you don't," he said, adding that, "ultimately this showdown will be at the Supreme Court." Trump declared a national economic emergency under the IEEPA to justify implementing his tariffs without first getting congressional approval, a strategy that has drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority The U.S. Court of International Trade last month temporarily blocked Trump's tariffs, saying that the IEEPA, which became law in 1977, does not authorize a president to implement universal duties on imports. But a federal appeals court earlier this month allowed Trump's tariffs to remain in effect until it hears arguments on that case at the end of next month. — CNBC's Lori Ann Wallace contributed reporting.
Int'l Business Times
4 hours ago
- Business
- Int'l Business Times
Supreme Court Declines To Fast-Track Challenge To Trump-Era Tariffs
The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to expedite a major legal challenge to former President Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports, opting not to intervene early in a case that could reshape presidential authority over trade policy. Educational toy companies Learning Resources and hand2mind had petitioned the Court to bypass the standard appeals process, citing the "sweeping economic consequences" of the tariffs and their impact on businesses and consumers nationwide. The Court's rejection means the case will proceed under the usual timeline, with the federal government now having until mid-July to file its response, Reuters reported. The companies argue that the tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were unconstitutional. They contend that the Act does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose trade barriers without congressional oversight. A lower court ruled in their favor in May 2024, stating that Trump lacked the authority to use emergency powers to enact the tariffs. That decision, however, is currently on hold pending appeal. In urging the Court to take up the case directly, the companies stressed what they called "unremitting whiplash" and an "unprecedented economic burden" placed on U.S. businesses. They asked the justices to schedule oral arguments as early as September 2025. The Biden administration opposed the motion, arguing that expedited review was "unwarranted" and that a similar case making its way through the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit presented a more suitable vehicle for resolving the legal questions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer advised the Court to allow the appellate process to play out, suggesting a decision could be better timed for the October 2025 term. While the Court's procedural ruling does not address the underlying legality of the tariffs, it delays any definitive resolution. The justices could still choose to hear the case in the next term or later, depending on the outcome of related appeals.
Axios
6 hours ago
- Business
- Axios
Supreme Court rejects toy companies' request to expedite tariff case
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by two small toy companies to expedite a tariff lawsuit against the Trump administration. Why it matters: The rejection means the dispute over the legality of Trump's tariffs will proceed through a federal appellate court in Washington, as was already planned. What they're saying: " In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process," the companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, had said in their request. But the high court rejected that petition without comment. Catch up quick: President Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad reciprocal tariffs.
NBC News
7 hours ago
- Business
- NBC News
Supreme Court rejects toy makers' request to fast track tariff challenge
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from two toy companies to expedite their challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The ruling from the nation's high court means that the Trump administration now has the standard 30-day window to file its response to the challenge. Two small family-owned companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give Trump the authority to implement his tariffs on products from China. The companies on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of their challenge and bypass a federal appeals court. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process,' the companies argued in their request. Trump's tariffs, a key part of his economic agenda, have drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority to implement the high levies. A federal appeals court earlier this month allowed Trump's tariffs to remain in effect until it hears arguments at the end of next month.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
US Companies Take Trump Tariff Suit to Supreme Court
American businesses that filed a joint lawsuit against President Donald Trump's tariffs have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, effectively sidestepping a lower court in search of a speedier resolution. The plaintiffs, two toy importers called Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, saw an Illinois federal court rule in their favor in late May after filing a lawsuit against the president alleging that he overstepped his authority in utilizing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. But the court's decision, along with a parallel ruling from a New York-based Court of International Trade, was put on hold amid appeals from the Trump administration. More from Sourcing Journal Tariffs Stall Long Beach Imports, Marking Slowest May Since Pre-Covid Era Port of LA Ordered by Federal Judge to Clean Up Contaminated Wastewater Majority of Americans Believe Tariffs Threaten Their Finances In light of the impact of the duties on U.S. businesses importing goods from overseas, the plaintiffs argued that challenges to the administration's tariff regime can't wait for the normal appellate process to play out—even on an expedited timeline. They asked the Supreme Court to swiftly grant a review the lower court's decision. According to the complainants, 'the President with the stroke of a pen increased the Nation's effective tariff rate tenfold to the highest it has been in more than a century'—an act that he is attempting to justify through the unprecedented use of IEEPA, and one that will cost Americans 'billions of dollars.' IEEPA, a little-known trade rule signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to regulate international commerce in the event of a national emergency caused by an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to the country's security or economy. It authorizes the Commander in Chief to use economic sanctions—like freezing assets or blocking transactions—to thwart foreign influence by bad actors, from terrorists to cyber criminals. But the plaintiffs in the suit against Trump argued that IEEPA doesn't give the president the power to impose sweeping tariffs on trade partners across the globe—or sanction his ability to leverage duties in any way. They pointed to the rulings of the Court of International Trade, as well as the federal district court that decided their case, underscoring that both found the administration's tariffs unlawful. 'But as of last week, both lower court injunctions have been stayed pending appeal. Even as these punishing tariffs cause American businesses and consumers to bleed billions of dollars each month, there will be no relief any time soon,' they wrote. With much confusion swirling around the lawfulness of the tariffs and the president's authority to impose them, the plaintiffs asked that the Supreme Court rule simply on the question of whether IEEPA authorizes the president to impose tariffs. 'That pure question of law, implicating core separation-of-powers concerns, is in fact the only merits question that the government believes courts have the power to answer. It will inevitably fall to this Court to resolve it definitively,' the petition read. Learning Resources and Hand2Mind are among a bevy of plaintiffs—including more than a dozen states' attorneys general, and a handful of businesses—that have taken on Trump for what they perceive to be an unjust and unsubstantiated use of tariffs. And there's no question of timing when it comes to elevating the issue to the Supreme Court, as the administration's three-month deferral of so-called reciprocal duties is set to expire on July 9, ushering in a flood of double-digit duties on goods from across the globe. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted last week that Trump might be willing to push out that deadline in the interest of continuing negotiations with trade partners—specifically, 18 of the most prominent countries or trade blocs doing business with the U.S. Last week, the administration touted an interim trade deal with China, wherein the sourcing titan will pay 55 percent duties on imports into the U.S. after a 90-day cooling off period. The finer details of that agreement have not been released. Outside of China, only the United Kingdom has reached a deal with the U.S. during the negotiating period. Announced in early May at an Oval Office signing, the deal—which lowered tariffs on British cars as well as steel, aluminum and aerospace equipment—was finalized by Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday.
