Trump 'Liberation Day' tariffs blocked by U.S. trade court
The so-called reciprocal tariffs imposed on "Liberation Day" and the trafficking-related tariffs have all been ruled an illegal overreach by the President and have been blocked by a U.S. trade court.
iPhone prices could have been raised as a result of tariffs
There has been a lot of volatility with Apple, big tech, and United States businesses since the April 2 "Liberation Day" tariffs imposed by President Trump. While many of the obscenely high tariffs have been lowered since, a global baseline of a still-high 10% has been in place.
According to a report from Reuters, a U.S. trade court has ruled that President Trump overstepped his authority. While it doesn't pass judgement on whether the tariffs would work as intended, the court does say they are not allowed according to federal law.
The Trump administration has already filed an appeal. The ruling provides a permanent injunction against enforcing the tariffs.
There are still some tariffs left in place by the ruling that didn't rely on the Emergency Economic Powers Act, like on automotive imports. But every tariff related to Canada and Mexico, referred to as trafficking tariffs, and all global so-called "reciprocal" tariffs, are no longer enforceable.
Given all of the changes, reversals, and exemptions, it is difficult to determine exactly how this might affect a company like Apple. If the tariffs are indeed removed, it'll mean Apple's $900 million hit to its bottom line might be lessened in the short term.
It may also be good news for Apple and other smartphone companies, as the ruling likely means President Trump can't impose a 25% tariff on smartphone imports. The ruling could collapse the administration's entire, if poorly executed, plan to force companies to bring manufacturing to the United States.
If the tariff policies are truly gone, it will mean a sigh of relief for Apple and its fans. The iPhone 17 lineup may not need to bear the weight of a price increase after all.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
What happens when laws are clear, courts have decided, and neither is enforced?
The US Constitution specifies that Congress, not the President, has the authority to set tariff rates.
Trump cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as delegating to the President the authority to set tariffs. IEEPA does not mention tariffs, and it only applies in certain emergency situations. A long term trade imbalance is not the sort of "emergency" that IEEPA covers.
An example of this would be the Biden administration's first attempt at forgiving student loan debt under the HEROES Act. A lawsuit was filed that challenged the use of the statute for that purpose. The SC ultimately ruled that the HEROES Act didn't contain language specific enough to support the actions being taken by the executive and ruled the use to be unconstitutional. So if student loan forgiveness is considered a big enough economic/political issue for the SC to apply the Major Questions Doctrine, then the tariff actions by the Trump administration will obviously qualify as well.
What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?
What we learned in high school is that check and balances would have Congress use their impeachment powers to rein in the executive branch. Good luck with that.
This can make it problematic for the courts to enforce rulings against the wishes of a sitting President.
From a theoretical standpoint, the Marshalls listen to the DOJ and Trump can't set tariffs.
From a practical standpoint, a Marshall's paycheck comes from the DOJ, and the Marshall's chain of command work for the DOJ. This administration has a history of firing people who follow the law when it conflicts with Presidential orders. Thus, a Marshall might be fired for attempting to enforce a court order against the Trump administration. We have seen this in the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York, where they went through six high ranking officials who refused to follow an illegal directive.
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime for any official acts. Executive orders and directives fall into that category. Additionally, any official acts can't be used as evidence in a court of law, even after the President leaves office.
Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Imagine a foreign government can't buy arms from the US because they have a history of supporting terrorism. They decide to offer the sitting President lucrative personal real estate deals, and a $200 million jet as an "incentive" for him to change US foreign policy to allow that country to purchase weapons. Suppose they structure the deal, so that the Jet is technical given to the US Government, with the stipulation that when the President leaves office the jet goes to a private organization run by the retired President (i.e. his "presidential library"). Imagine that in this hypothetical situation, the President agreed.
In the past, this would have been considered a bribe. The President could have been charged with a crime while in office, or after he let office. Under the new supreme court ruling the President is immune from prosecution for accepting bribes while in office, and after he leaves office.
The bottom line is that even if it was a crime for the President to defy a court order, he cannot be prosecuted for it, and the US Marshalls would have no jurisdiction over the President.