Federal Express has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government seeking a full refund of tariffs paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This action follows a Supreme Court ruling that declared these tariffs illegal and granted the Court of International Trade exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes. FedEx’s suit, filed on behalf of itself and its associated company FedEx Logistics, aims to recover all IEEPA duties paid, marking what appears to be the first such claim by a major American company after the Supreme Court’s decision. Other companies have also filed similar suits to stake claims for their refunds, highlighting a broader impact of the ruling on businesses that incurred these now-invalidated duties.
Read More
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Trump administration exceeded its authority by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), FedEx has filed a lawsuit seeking a full refund of all tariffs it paid. The global logistics company argues that it imported goods subject to these duties and consequently suffered financial injury. This action by FedEx marks a significant corporate response to the Supreme Court’s decision, with several other companies, including Costco, having also filed similar refund requests.
Read More
Despite the Supreme Court striking down tariffs imposed under emergency laws, President Donald Trump asserted that the ruling inadvertently granted him expanded presidential powers. He claimed this expanded authority allows for the imposition of “terrible” actions against foreign countries, particularly those he believes have taken advantage of the U.S. The president suggested that while the court may have disallowed license fees, licenses inherently involve fees, hinting at future implementation. Furthermore, Trump indicated that existing tariffs, not affected by the ruling, could now be utilized in more potent and assertive ways.
Read More
Following a Supreme Court ruling against the use of emergency powers for tariffs, the President announced plans for a 10% global import tax under a different law, which was subsequently raised to 15%. Critics argue this action lacks the required emergency conditions and constitutes a tax on American citizens, rather than a legally sound trade policy. This move has drawn swift condemnation from across the political spectrum, with concerns raised about its economic impact and potential legal challenges.
Read More
The Utah Supreme Court has delivered a significant victory for fair representation, upholding a new redistricting map that is considered more equitable for upcoming midterm elections. This decision comes after the Republican Party attempted to challenge the map, but their appeal was ultimately rejected. The ruling is a welcome development for many who have grown increasingly concerned about the practice of gerrymandering, where political parties manipulate district boundaries to gain an unfair advantage.
For residents of Utah, this decision offers a glimmer of hope. There’s a cautious happiness among those who have watched with concern as electoral processes have been manipulated to consolidate power.… Continue reading
President Trump reportedly became enraged during a governors’ breakfast upon learning the Supreme Court had struck down his global tariffs, calling the decision a “disgrace” and exclaiming, “these fucking courts.” The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing these broad tariffs, a significant setback for his presidential powers. This ruling, delivered by a bench including conservative justices Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett, casts doubt on approximately $200 billion in collected tariffs, potentially leading to refund requests from companies.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued two rulings favoring the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). First, it permitted DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data for fraud detection and system modernization, despite concerns about a potential fishing expedition and privacy violations. Second, the Court temporarily halted a lower court order requiring DOGE to release documents under a transparency law, narrowing the scope of the disclosure while leaving the possibility of some future release open. These decisions, met with dissent from the Court’s liberal justices, represent significant victories for DOGE amidst ongoing controversy surrounding its data handling practices and transparency. The rulings have significant implications for future cases involving DOGE’s access to government data.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who alleged reverse discrimination based on her sexual orientation, overturning a Sixth Circuit precedent. The Court invalidated a stricter standard of proof for majority-group plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision eliminates the requirement for such plaintiffs to demonstrate “background circumstances” of discrimination, impacting similar cases across 20 states and the District of Columbia. The case is remanded for reconsideration under the new, equal standard for all plaintiffs.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a ruling that significantly weakens the protection of independent executive branch agencies from presidential removal. This decision, foreshadowing a potential overturning of the nearly century-old *Humphrey’s Executor* precedent, allows the President greater control over these agencies. The dissenting justices criticized the majority’s actions as prioritizing the President’s wishes over established legal precedent and the will of Congress. While acknowledging the Federal Reserve’s unique protection, the Court’s approach suggests a willingness to dismantle the independence of other agencies. This ruling brings the country closer to a unitary executive model, potentially transforming the executive branch into an extension of presidential power.
Read More
In a single day, three federal judges issued rulings against President Trump, halting key components of his agenda. A Washington judge blocked his executive order on voting changes, citing Congress’s authority over federal elections. Separately, judges in San Francisco and New Hampshire prevented the administration from withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities and schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, respectively, due to concerns over due process and unconstitutionally vague policies. These decisions follow Trump’s recent criticism of judges as engaging in “judicial insurrection.”
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood