Washington – A federal court in New York handed over President Donald Trump a major setback on Wednesday, Prevented To impose huge taxes on imports from almost every country in the world.
A committee of three judges from the American International Trade Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when he called for the 1977 Economic Forces Act for 1977 to declare the state of national emergency and justify comprehensive definitions.
The customs tariff canceled contracts from American trade policy, disrupted global trade, shakes financial markets and raised the risk of high prices and stagnation in the United States and around the world.
The American International Trade Court has the judicial state on civil cases involved in trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the American Court of Appeal of the Federal Department in Washington, and in the end to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges are expected to end on the Trump tariff on a large scale.
The court’s decision prohibits the definitions that Trump slapped last month Almost all commercial partners And the luxury imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.
On April 2, Trump imposed the so -called mutual definitions by up to 50 % on countries in the United States running a trade deficit and 10 % of the basic tariffs on almost everyone. He later suspended the 90 -day mutual definitions to give countries time to agree to reduce the barriers that prevent American exports. But he kept the basic definitions in place. As for the exceptional authority to act without the approval of Congress, it was justified by IEPA by declaring the US -long trade deficit a “national emergency.”
In February, the law protested by imposing a tariff on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of migrants and drugs throughout the American border was a national emergency and that the three countries needed to exert more effort to stop it.
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to set taxes, including definitions. But the legislators gradually allowed the presidents to assume more power on the definitions – and Trump has achieved its most beneficial.
The definitions are stabbed at at least seven cases. On the ruling on Wednesday, the Commercial Court brought together two cases – it was brought by five small companies and another by 12 US states.
The ruling is left in the location of another Trump tariff, including those in foreign steel, aluminum and cars. However, these fees were called according to a different law that requires an investigation into the Ministry of Commerce and cannot be imposed according to the president’s discretion.
The administration argued that the courts had approved the then President Richard Nixon in an economic and financial crisis in 1971 that arose when the United States suddenly reduced the dollar by ending the policy of linking the American currency to the price of gold. The Nixon Administration has successfully cited its authority under the 1917 trading law, which preceded and provided some legal language later used in IEPPA.
The court opposed, and decided that the Trump’s comprehensive tariff exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEPA. He also said that the definitions did nothing to deal with the problems he was supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America’s trade deficit barely did not represent a sudden state of emergency. The United States has raised it for 49 consecutive years in good and bad times.
Windy Kotler, a former American commercial official, is now vice president at the Asian Association Policy Institute, the court’s decision “casts the president’s commercial policy to unrest.”
She said: “The partners who negotiate hard during the period of the 90 -day tariff may be seduced to stop making more concessions to the United States so that there is more legal clarity,” she said.
Likewise, companies will have to re -evaluate the way their supply chains run, and shipments may accelerate the United States to compensate for the risk of tariffing to appeal.
The Trade Court noted that Trump maintains a more limited power to impose a customs tariff to address the trade deficit under another law, the 1974 Trade Law. But this law restricts the customs tariff to 15 % and only for 150 days with countries that run the United States a major trade deficit.
At the present time, Issar Brasad, a professor of commercial policy at Cornell University, said that the Commercial Court’s decision “destroys the logical basis of the Trump administration to use the federal emergency authorities to impose customs tariffs, which exceeded the authority of Congress and contradicts any idea of due legal procedures.” “The ruling shows that Trump’s wide definitions are unilaterally represented a transgression of the executive authority.”
_____
AP Lindsay Whitehurst writer contributed to this story.
