A federal appeals court temporarily stayed a lower court ruling that invalidated most of President Trump’s tariffs, granting the administration’s request for a pause. This stay allows the administration time to argue against the lower court’s decision, which found the president lacked the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. Plaintiffs, including state attorneys general and businesses, have a week to respond before the appeals court makes a final decision. The White House strongly criticized the lower court’s ruling, while plaintiffs expressed confidence in a reversal.
Read More
A US trade court ruled President Trump’s sweeping tariffs illegal, exceeding his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump administration immediately appealed, seeking a stay from the ruling to prevent what it called irreparable economic harm, and plans to take the case to the Supreme Court. The ruling invalidated tariff orders issued under the IEEPA, requiring new orders within ten days, but industry-specific tariffs remain unaffected. While the White House denounced the decision as judicial overreach, the ruling was celebrated in global financial markets.
Read More
A U.S. court ruling blocking many of President Trump’s tariffs initially spurred a significant stock rally in Asia, with markets in Tokyo and Seoul seeing gains of nearly 2%. However, this enthusiasm was tempered in the U.S., where the S&P 500 showed only modest gains, and the Dow fell slightly, due to uncertainty surrounding the White House’s appeal and the ruling’s limited scope. While the decision was viewed positively, the potential for future tariffs under different laws and ongoing legal challenges contributed to a more cautious market response. Strong performances from tech stocks, particularly Nvidia and C3ai, helped offset declines in some sectors.
Read More
Following a federal trade court’s unanimous decision blocking President Trump’s proposed tariffs, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell predicted a significant stock market rally. The court’s summary judgment, exceeding even the plaintiffs’ request, effectively nullified Trump’s plan, which O’Donnell deemed unconstitutional and illegal. This ruling, rejecting all of Trump’s justifications, represents a setback for his trade policies. Despite Trump’s appeal, the decision signals a potential restoration of international trade order.
Read More
A US federal court blocked President Trump’s global tariffs, ruling that the invoked emergency law didn’t grant him unilateral authority to impose them. The court cited the Constitution’s grant of commerce regulation power to Congress. The Trump administration plans to appeal, while various parties, including affected businesses and states, celebrated the decision. Global markets reacted positively to the ruling, although the long-term effects remain uncertain pending appeals.
Read More
A federal court blocked President Trump’s widespread tariffs, deeming them beyond his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court rejected the administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted such broad tariff powers, finding the levies on various countries (including a global 10% tariff) addressed trade imbalances rather than genuine emergencies. The ruling specifically targeted tariffs imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada, deemed unrelated to stated justifications of drug trafficking and illegal immigration. The Trump administration plans to appeal the decision.
Read More
A federal court blocked President Trump’s broad use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, halting a key component of his trade policy. The ruling, from the U.S. Court of International Trade, found that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). While some tariffs imposed under different legal authorities remain, the decision represents a significant legal setback for the administration. The White House has appealed the ruling, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court review.
Read More
Court says Trump doesn’t have the authority to set tariffs. This ruling, stemming from a full court decision, finally puts a stop to a practice many believed was unconstitutional from the start. The decision clarifies a fundamental principle of our system of government: the power to impose tariffs rests with Congress, not the executive branch.
Court says Trump doesn’t have the authority to set tariffs, and this impacts far more than just the immediate economic consequences. The ruling highlights a crucial separation of powers, a cornerstone of our democratic framework. It underscores the importance of adhering to the checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual, regardless of their position.… Continue reading
Following a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, President Trump agreed to delay the implementation of a 50 percent tariff on European Union goods until July 9, 2025. This postponement follows Trump’s earlier announcement of the tariff, which had caused market volatility. Von der Leyen requested the extension to allow for expedited trade negotiations. The agreement defused immediate trade tensions between the U.S. and the EU, averting a potentially significant economic disruption.
Read More
President Trump’s tariffs, including a 10% baseline and 30% on Chinese goods, are forcing numerous retailers to raise prices. Major companies like Walmart, Mattel, and Best Buy have announced price increases on various products, citing the tariffs’ significant impact on their costs. This increase affects a wide range of goods, from toys and electronics to clothing and automobiles. Further price hikes are expected from companies including Ford, Subaru, and Procter & Gamble, highlighting the broad economic consequences of the tariffs.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood