ReportWire

Tag: supreme court ruling

  • Murky outlook for businesses after tariff ruling prompts countermoves by Trump

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Businesses face a new wave of uncertainty after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under an emergency powers law and Trump vowed to work around the ruling to keep his tariffs in place.

    The Trump administration says its tariffs help boost American manufacturers and reduce the trade gap. But many U.S. businesses have had to raise prices and adjust in other ways to offset higher costs spurred by the tariffs.

    It remains to be seen how much relief businesses and consumers will actually get from Friday’s ruling. Within hours of the court’s decision, Trump pledged to use a different law to impose a 10% tariff on all imports that would last 150 days, and to explore other ways to impose additional tariffs on countries he says engage in unfair trade practices.

    “Any boost to the economy from lowering tariffs in the near-term is likely to be partly offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty,” said Michael Pearce, an economist at Oxford Economics. “With the administration likely to rebuild tariffs through other, more durable, means, the overall tariffs rate may yet end up settling close to current levels.”

    Efforts to claw back the estimated $133 billion to $175 billion of previously collected tariffs now deemed illegal are bound to be complicated, and will likely favor larger companies with more resources. Consumers hoping for a refund are unlikely to be compensated.

    The fight against tariffs continues

    With Trump’s unyielding position on tariffs, many business are braced for years of court battles.

    Basic Fun, a Florida-based maker of toys such as Lincoln Logs and Tonka trucks, last week joined a slew of other businesses in a lawsuit seeking to claw back tariffs paid to the government.

    While company CEO Jay Foreman is concerned about any new tariffs Trump may impose, he doesn’t think they will affect toys. Still, he said, “I do worry about some type of perpetual fight over this, at least for the next three years.”

    The new 10% tariff Trump announced Friday immediately raised questions for Daniel Posner, the owner of Grapes The Wine Co., in White Plains, New York. Since wine shipments take about two weeks to cross the Atlantic, he wonders if a shipment arriving Monday will be affected.

    “We’re reactive to what’s become a very unstable situation,” Posner said.

    Ron Kurnik owns Superior Coffee Roasting Co. in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, across the border from Canada. In addition to U.S. tariffs, Kurnik faced retaliatory tariffs from Canada for much of last year when he exported his coffee.

    “It’s like a nightmare we just want to wake up from,” said Kurnik, whose company has raised prices by 6% twice since the tariffs went into effect. While he’s pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling, he doesn’t think he will ever see a refund.

    Industries pine for more stability

    A wide array of industries, including retail, tech and the agricultural sector, used the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to remind Trump of how his trade policies have affected their businesses.

    The Business Roundtable, a group that lobbies on behalf of more than 200 U.S. companies, released a statement encouraging the administration to limit the focus of tariffs going forward to specific unfair trade practices and national security concerns.

    In the retail industry, stores of all stripes have embraced different ways to offset the effects of tariffs – from absorbing some of the costs themselves, to cutting expenses and diversifying their supply network. Still, they have had to pass on some price increases at a time when shoppers have been particularly sensitive to inflationary pressures.

    Dave French, executive vice president of government relations for The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail industry trade group, said he hoped lower courts would ensure “a seamless process” to refund tariffs. That issue wasn’t addressed in Friday’s ruling.

    For the technology sector, Trump’s tariffs caused major headaches. Many of its products are either built overseas or depend on imports of key components. The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents a spectrum of technology companies employing more than 1.6 million people, expressed hope that the decision will ease the trade tensions.

    “With this decision behind us, we look forward to bringing more stability to trade policy,” said Jonathan McHale, the association’s vice president for digital trade.

    Farmers, who have been stung by higher prices for equipment and fertilizer since the tariffs went into effect, and reduced demand for their exports, also spoke out.

    “We strongly encourage the president to avoid using any other available authorities to impose tariffs on agricultural inputs that would further increase costs,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall.

    Industries that aren’t feeling any relief

    The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the president authority to tax imports, a power that belongs to Congress. But the decision only affects tariffs imposed under that law, so some industries will see no relief at all.

    The decision leaves in effect tariffs on steel, upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, according to the Home Furnishings Association, which represents 15,000 furniture stores in North America.

    At Revolution Brewing in Chicago, the aluminum they use for cans costs as much as the ingredients that go inside them because of tariffs Trump has placed on metals that are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling. While the cans are made in Chicago, the aluminum comes from Canada, said Josh Deth, managing partner at the brewery.

    Tariffs have been just one challenge for his business, which is also affected by volatile barley prices and a slowdown in demand for craft beer.

    “Everything kind of adds up,” he said. “The beverage industry needs relief here. We’re getting crushed by the prices of aluminum.”

    Reaction overseas

    Italian winemakers hard-hit by the tariffs greeted the Supreme Court decision with skepticism, warning that the decision may just deepen uncertainty around trade with the U.S.

    The U.S. is Italy’s largest wine market, with sales having tripled in value over the past 20 years. New tariffs on the EU, which the Trump administration initially threatened would be 200%, had sent fear throughout the industry, which remained even after the U.S. reduced, delayed and negotiated down.

    “There is a more than likely risk that tariffs will be reimposed through alternative legal channels, compounded by the uncertainty this ruling may generate in commercial relations between Europe and the United States,” said Lamberto Frescobaldi, president of UIV, a trade association that represents more than 800 winemakers.

    Elsewhere in Europe, initial reaction focused on renewed upheaval and confusion regarding costs facing businesses exporting to the US.

    Trump’s tariffs could hit pharmaceuticals, chemicals and auto parts, said Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING bank. “Europe should not be mistaken, this ruling will not bring relief,” he said. “The legal authority may be different, but the economic impact could be identical or worse.”

    ___

    Anne D’Innocenzio in New York; Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit; Michael Liedtke in San Francisco; David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany; Jonathan Matisse in Nashville, Tennessee; Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee; and Nicole Winfield in Rome contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Virginia Sen. Kaine, top tariff foe, says SCOTUS decision is win for consumers – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine was joined by Sen. Mitch McConnell in his support for the high court’s decision to strike down the Trump administration’s tariff campaign.

    Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who has repeatedly introduced bills to lift President Donald Trump’s tariffs, may be one of the happiest members of Congress after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike the levies down.

    The Democratic lawmaker was among the first to issue a statement after the high court’s decision on Friday.

    “Broad-based tariffs are a tax on American consumers, and the Trump administration’s attempt to pretend otherwise was laughable in its inaccuracy and deeply disrespectful to the millions of American consumers who have faced higher prices because of Trump’s unaffordable economic policies,” he wrote.

    Kaine has led the way for Democrats in the fight against tariffs, getting four bills advanced in the Senate, including one aimed at Canada.

    The Virginia lawmaker has cited the economic pain that tariffs can cause not just to consumers, but to small businesses like beer breweries and even pie shops that rely on aluminum pie tins.

    In his Friday statement, he also accused the administration of carrying out an “egregious and destructive abuse of presidential power.”

    Longtime GOP senator also praises high court decision

    Many Republicans criticized the Supreme Court decision, arguing it ties the hands of the president as he tries to take on unfair trade practices to protect American workers.

    But, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who served as GOP Senate leader longer than any other lawmaker, issued a statement strongly backing the ruling.

    He said the high court “reaffirmed authority that has rested with Congress for centuries.”

    “Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid,” he wrote. “If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1.”

    McConnell’s view is one that had been held by most Republicans for decades. But it was upended when Trump was elected to office in 2016, making it clear he supported tariffs.

    The president then imposed sweeping tariffs when he returned to the White House last year.

    What’s ahead for Congress on tariffs?

    U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, called on fellow GOP lawmakers on Friday to pass legislation that would codify the president’s tariffs affected by the Supreme Court decision.

    He called the decision “outrageous” in a post on X.

    “This betrayal must be reversed and Republicans must get to work immediately on a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!” he said.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson issued statements of support for the president and indicated they would work with him to do what he wants.

    But the president, when asked at a news conference about working with Congress to produce new tariff legislation, dismissed the idea.

    “I’ve always had the right to do tariffs. It’s all been approved by Congress,” he said. “So there’s no reason to do it.”

    However, the president has relied on executive orders — not Congress — to impose his tariffs, which is what the high court called into legal question.

    Trump announced Friday that he would impose 10% global tariffs through a different provision.

    It would require congressional approval to be extended after 150 days.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mitchell Miller

    Source link

  • Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariffs leaves Mexico in cautious wait-and-see mode

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s secretary of the economy, Marcelo Ebrard, urged “prudence” Friday in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidating part of President Trump’s sweeping tariff regimen.

    “We have to see where this is going,” Ebrard told reporters. “We have to see what measures [Washington] is going to take to figure out how it is going to affect our country. “

    Amid widespread concern about tariffs in Mexico—the United States major commercial partner, with almost $1 trillion in annual two-way trade—Ebrard cautioned: “I tell you to put yourselves in Zen mode. As tranquil as possible.”

    Across the globe, nations were assessing how the high court’s ruling might affect them. Some world leaders expressed relief or satisfaction with Friday’s decision.

    “The justices have shown that even a US president does not operate in a legal vacuum. Legal boundaries have been set, the era of unlimited, arbitrary tariffs may now be coming to an end,” wrote Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, on X.

    Also writing on X, Canada’s trade minister, Dominic LeBlanc, referred to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the Supreme Court improperly used to impose tariffs: “The United States Supreme Court’s decision reinforces Canada’s position that the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified.”

    Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, in her daily news conference, diplomatically made a no-comment when asked about the tariffs. “We’ll review the resolution carefully and then gladly give our opinion,” she said.

    Ebrard, her economy secretary, plans to travel to the United States next week to clarify matters, he said.

    Last year, Ebrard noted, Mexico managed to stave off Trump’s threats to impose a 25% across-the-board levy on all Mexican imports.

    However, Mexico has been pushing back against Trump administration tariffs on imports of vehicles, steel and aluminum, among other products.

    Among other impacts, the Supreme Court voided so-called fentanyl tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada. The Trump administration imposed those levies in a bid to force the three nations to crack down on trafficking of the deadly synthetic opioid.

    In the aftermath of Friday’s ruling, Trump said he planned to seek alternate legal avenues to impose now-stricken tariffs.

    About 85% of Mexican exports to the United States are exempt from tariffs because of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The signature accord extended a mostly free-trade regimen between the three nations, replacing the previous North American Free Trade Agreement.

    The three-way pact is scheduled for joint review starting July 1. That date marks six years since the agreement was signed during the first Trump presidential term.

    [ad_2]

    Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • Bonta ‘disappointed’ by Supreme Court ruling on L.A. immigration raids

    [ad_1]

    California’s top law enforcement official has weighed in on Monday‘s controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling on immigration enforcement.

    Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta condemned the decision, which clears the way for immigration agents to stop and question people they suspect of being in the U.S. illegally based solely on information such as their perceived race or place of employment.

    Speaking at a news conference Monday in downtown L.A., Bonta said he agreed with claims the ACLU made in its lawsuit against the Trump administration. He called indiscriminate tactics used to make immigration arrests a violation of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Bonta said he thinks it is unconstitutional “for ICE agents, federal immigration officers, to use race, the inability to speak English, location or perceived occupation to … stop and detain, search, seize Californians.”

    He also decried what he described as the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on its emergency docket, which he said often obscures the justices’ decision-making.

    “It’s disappointing,” he said. “And the emergency docket has been used more and more. You often don’t know who has voted and how. There’s no argument. There’s no written opinion.”

    Bonta called Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s opinion “very disturbing.”

    The Trump-appointed justice argued that because many people who do day labor in fields such as construction or farming, engagement in such work could be useful in helping immigrant agents determine which people to stop.

    Bonta said the practice enables “the use of race to potentially discriminate,” saying “it is disturbing and it is troubling.”

    [ad_2]

    Connor Sheets, Sandra McDonald

    Source link

  • Does the Supreme Court’s ruling mean the president is above the law? Va. law professor weighs in – WTOP News

    Does the Supreme Court’s ruling mean the president is above the law? Va. law professor weighs in – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    A University of Virginia law professor discusses the Supreme Court’s historic ruling on presidential immunity with WTOP.

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former presidents are immune from prosecution for what’s described as “official acts” while in office, but not for “unofficial acts.”

    Saikrishna Prakash testifies during the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Pool)(AP/Susan Walsh)

    The justices did not distinguish whether the crimes former President Donald Trump is accused of in his upcoming criminal trials fall under one category or the other, leaving that up to to the lower courts to decide first.

    However, it’s highly unlikely that Trump’s election interference trial in D.C. connected to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol would even start until after the November election.

    Saikrishna Prakash is a James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School. He’s a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas and has written extensively about whether presidents can be prosecuted.

    Prakash spoke with WTOP anchors Shawn Anderson and Anne Kramer about the reasoning behind the majority’s decision to separate “official” from “unofficial” acts.

    Listen to the full interview, or read the transcript below. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. 

    University of Virginia law professor Saikrishna Prakash joins WTOP to discuss the Supreme Court’s historic ruling.

     

    Saikrishna Prakash: I think what the court did is looked at its prior case law and prior case law had found immunity from civil prosecutions arising out of those official acts, and then found an executive privilege to protect presidential documents. These were all based on sort of structural inferences what the Constitution said — nothing expressly. But the court nonetheless found various immunities and protections. And that’s what the court did here. They kind of extended those cases.

    The reasoning was that if a president is subject to prosecution for his constitutional acts, you won’t be able to exercise those powers completely and with confidence that they won’t result in a prosecution after the fact. So the court said for constitutional acts, the president’s completely immune; for official acts, he’s at least presumptively immune, and the government would have to overcome that presumption. And so it’s based on nothing explicitly in the text of the Constitution. And in that way, it’s not different than what the court has done before except, obviously, an expansion of those previous rulings.

    Shawn Anderson: Opponents, of course, are floored by this ruling. They believe it leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what a president could get away with. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote and delivered a furious dissent here. Her quote: “The President is now a king above the law.” You once wrote a book titled “Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive.” So does the justice have a point about the president becoming a king?

    Saikrishna Prakash: Well, I think I mainly agree with the dissent on this. I don’t believe the president has any official immunity from prosecution arising out of his or her official acts, and I’ve been critical of the court’s jurisprudence with respect to civil immunity, so I think that she has it right.

    Not sure I agree with the rhetoric, but I don’t think the president has immunity. Does this make the president a king? I don’t think I would say that. But one can agree with the overall conclusion, even if one doesn’t agree with all the particulars. I think her concern is a legitimate one, which is that presidents will take actions and then not be found liable criminally for them and not be found civilly liable, which sort of just leaves impeachment and of course, impeachment is very hard to successfully conclude in the modern era. It’s easy to impeach a president, it’s very hard to convict them because of the two-thirds requirement. And so the court’s opinions in this area have the cumulative effect of strengthening the presidency by diminishing its accountability to the criminal process and the civil process.

    I think, from the majority’s perspective, to be fair to them, they’re looking at this and thinking every Tom, Dick and Harry prosecutor will go after the president, and we’ll have presidents going after successors once they become president. And of course, if Donald Trump succeeds, and had there been no immunity for the president’s official acts, then he might have prosecuted Joe Biden for them as well. So there are intuitions and good points made on both sides, even as I ultimately agree with Justice Sotomayor’s overall conclusion

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Kronzer

    Source link

  • US Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks, gun accessories used in 2017 massacre

    US Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks, gun accessories used in 2017 massacre

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday invalidated a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, ruling the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wrongly classified firearms equipped with a bump stock as machine guns.

    The 6-3 opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court’s three liberal justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.

    The court ruled a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” under federal law “because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’”

    “This case asks whether a bump stock — an accessory for a semiautomatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire) — converts the rifle into a ‘machinegun.’ We hold that it does not,” Thomas wrote.

    More than 700,000 bump stocks were sold since 2009 after the Obama-era ATF approved the manufacture and sale. The bump stock, which is non-mechanical, can simulate an automatic weapon, firing 400-800 rounds per minute. A fully automatic weapon, such as a M16 rifle, shoots 700-950 rounds per minute.

    The ATF ban on the accessory was created in the wake of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history when a gunman opened fire at Las Vegas music festival in 2017. Fifty-eight people were killed and hundreds of others wounded.

    Sotomayor, in her dissent, noted the gunman in that tragedy used the device to create rapid fire.

    “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” Sotomayor wrote. “A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’”

    Sotomayor added, “Today’s decision to reject that ordinary understanding will have deadly consequences. The majority’s artificially narrow definition hamstrings the Government’s efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.”

    Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the nation’s largest gun control advocacy groups, decried the court’s decision as “putting millions at risk of harm.”

    President Joe Biden, in the wake of the ruling, issued a statement calling on Congress to ban bump stocks as well as assault weapons.

    But given the narrow partisan divide on Capitol Hill, the influence of the gun lobby and election-year campaign politics — immediate legislative action in response to the court’s ruling is unlikely, even though a ban did have some bipartisan support in 2017.

    “Today’s decision strikes down an important gun safety regulation. Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation,” Biden said.

    Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, said the court’s decision “should be respected” and that the “right to keep and bear arms has never been more critical.” The statement, however, did not address the fact that the ATF imposed the ban during his administration.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    [ad_2]

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump could learn Monday whether the Supreme Court will let him appear on this year’s ballot as the leading Republican presidential candidate tries to close in on his party’s nomination.

    The justices are expected to decide at least one case Monday, with signs strongly pointing to a resolution of the case from Colorado that threatens to kick Trump off some state ballots because of his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. Any opinions will post on the court’s website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST.

    Trump is challenging a groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said he is disqualified from being president again and ineligible for the state’s primary, which is Tuesday.

    The resolution of the case on Monday, a day before Super Tuesday contests in 16 states, would remove uncertainty about whether votes for Trump will ultimately count. Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8.

    The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump’s favor.

    RELATED: Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    The Colorado court was the first to invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Trump also has since been barred from primary ballot in Illinois and Maine, though both decisions, along with Colorado’s, are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

    The Supreme Court has until now never ruled on the provision, Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

    The court indicated Sunday there will be at least one case decided Monday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the Trump ballot case that will be handed down.

    Except for when the end of the term approaches in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. But the next scheduled court day isn’t until March 15. And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won’t be there Monday.

    ALSO SEE: Trump faces deadline to ask SCOTUS for delay in election interference trial

    Separately, the justices last week agreed to hear arguments in late April over whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s decision to step into the politically charged case, also with little in the way of precedent to guide it, calls into question whether Trump will stand trial before the November election.

    The former president faces 91 criminal charges in four prosecutions. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems on track to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial on March 25, and the judge has signaled his determination to press ahead.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link