The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of his tariff policies, despite rulings against them from two lower federal courts. The petition itself presents factual claims that, if taken seriously, would likely lead the Court to strike down the tariffs under the “major questions doctrine.” However, the Court’s Republican justices have seemingly used this doctrine inconsistently, applying it against Democratic President Biden while potentially seeking a way to exempt Trump. This doctrine has no legal basis and appears to be a tool used selectively to invalidate policies, potentially offering an exception for foreign policy decisions.
Read More
President Trump’s tariffs, which imposed duties as high as 145% on some countries, face a Supreme Court challenge after a federal appeals court ruled they were unlawfully enacted. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, the Treasury could be forced to refund over $210 billion in tariff revenue to American businesses. While businesses await potential refunds, economic experts caution that such a move could lead to increased government borrowing and potentially fuel inflation. Therefore, the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of the tariffs has wide-ranging implications for both businesses and the overall economy.
Read More
In a recent ruling, a court declared Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal, raising the possibility of the government repaying billions in duties. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the president exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing import taxes on trading partners using emergency powers. This decision casts uncertainty over trade agreements and could invalidate tariffs placed on countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. The court emphasized that the statute does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs, duties, or taxes under a declared national emergency.
Read More
July’s inflation, as measured by the Federal Reserve’s preferred personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, edged higher, with core inflation reaching a 2.9% annual rate, the highest since February. The all-items index also hit the consensus outlook at a 2.6% annual rate. While the Fed targets a 2% inflation rate, markets still anticipate the Fed to resume lowering its benchmark interest rate, with experts like Ellen Zentner emphasizing the importance of labor market data. Despite rising prices, consumer spending increased 0.5%, alongside a 0.4% rise in personal income, indicating economic strength.
Read More
A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Trump’s global tariffs were illegal, significantly impacting his trade policies. The court determined that the law Trump invoked to impose the tariffs, including his “reciprocal” tariffs, did not grant him the necessary power. The ruling pauses its effect until October 14th, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case originated from lawsuits challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the court found that the tariffs’ scope exceeded the president’s authority.
Read More
Trump’s global tariffs are unlawful, appeals court says, and that’s a pretty straightforward statement. It’s the kind of news that makes you think, “Well, duh,” especially when you consider the whole situation. The court case has been dragging on for eight months, and the fact that the tariffs were allowed to stay in place while the legal wrangling unfolded is, frankly, a little infuriating. It essentially allowed these allegedly unlawful actions to continue for a significant period, with no immediate consequences. It’s the kind of thing that breeds cynicism, isn’t it?
The response from Trump, as reported, was pretty dramatic. Warning that blocking the tariffs “would literally destroy the United States of America” feels like an overwrought reaction, to say the least.… Continue reading
Friday’s ruling from a federal appeals court further complicated former President Trump’s economic agenda, specifically regarding his imposition of tariffs. The court found Trump lacked the authority to enforce a majority of his broad tariffs on imported goods. This decision constitutes another significant legal hurdle for the trade policies central to his administration’s approach. The ruling directly challenges the president’s power to unilaterally enact such tariffs, impacting trade relationships with numerous nations.
Read More
Former President Donald Trump has imposed a 50% tariff on most US imports from India, following through on threats related to India’s purchases of discounted Russian oil. This action, which adds to existing 25% tariffs, risks damaging the Indian economy and disrupting global supply chains. In response, India’s government has refused to halt oil purchases and has encouraged citizens to buy domestic goods, potentially leading to closer ties with Russia and China. Economists predict this will reduce India’s GDP. The US has not taken similar action against China, a major purchaser of Russian oil, nor has it taken similar actions against other countries.
Read More
In India, Trump’s tariffs spark calls to boycott American goods, and the sentiment is certainly a complex one, reflecting a blend of frustration, pragmatism, and a dash of defiance. It seems the tariffs, however the origin or intent, are acting as a catalyst, igniting discussions about the viability and impact of a boycott.
Many Indians seem to feel that the impact on everyday consumer goods might not be as significant as one might think. The retail landscape, at least in some sectors, already leans heavily towards local options. Some are suggesting that outside of perhaps a “gourmet American experience,” there isn’t a massive reliance on American goods, particularly in the retail sector.… Continue reading
President Trump has announced plans to increase tariffs on India within the next day. This decision stems from India’s ongoing purchase of Russian oil. Trump stated that these purchases are contributing to the Russian war effort.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood