Legal challenge to Trump's tariffs likely headed to Supreme Court
A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court.
Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead.
The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA.
A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal.
A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief.
The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly.
There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.
Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade.
There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.
Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit.
Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Is Trump's Africa deal everything he advertised?
As Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo hold their first official meeting under a US-backed peace deal, Trump is touting it as a diplomatic win. But critics say his motive isn't peace – it's power. In this week's Fact Check, Jillian Wolf investigates how cobalt, coltan and a brewing rivalry with China are shaping America's playbook in Africa.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What is the missile treaty Russia has walked out of – and why?
Russia on Monday announced it will stop abiding by a decades-old nuclear missile treaty with the United States, raising fears of the return of a Cold War-style arms race. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed in 1987, had put a moratorium on the deployment of short and medium-range missiles between the world's leading military powers. US President Donald Trump withdrew from the treaty in 2019, during his first term. Russia remained part of the agreement until Monday. It had pledged not to deploy such weapons as long as Washington did not do so – though the US has repeatedly accused Moscow of violating the pact. The Russian move comes days after Trump ordered the repositioning of two nuclear submarines in response to what he called 'threatening comments' made by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently deputy chair of Russia's Security Council. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has ramped up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. He has also targeted India with tariffs and threats for buying Russian oil. Meanwhile, the US special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, is scheduled to visit Moscow this week as part of efforts to end the Ukraine-Russia war. So why has the Kremlin withdrawn from the treaty, and will it affect defence agreements between two of the major powers? What is the INF disarmament treaty? The treaty was inked by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, ending the deadlock of the Cold War arms race. It banned possessing, producing or test-flying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500km (311 to 3,418 miles). More than 2,600 missiles from both sides were destroyed as part of the treaty that covers both nuclear and conventional warheads. It does not cover air-launched or sea-launched weapons. Washington demolished 846, and Moscow 1,846 as part of the disarmament efforts. What justification did Russia give for withdrawing from the decades-old treaty? Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday cited the movement of US missile platforms in Europe, the Philippines and Australia as a direct threat to Moscow's security. 'Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of US-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared,' the ministry said in its statement. The ministry said that Moscow would end the moratorium to maintain strategic balance and counter the new threat. Medvedev, the former president, said the Russian decision is the result of NATO countries' 'anti-Russian policy'. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,' he posted on X on Monday. Medvedev was also engaged in a heated social media exchange with Trump last week after the US president served an ultimatum to Russia to end the war in 10 days. In response, Trump on Friday ordered two nuclear submarines to be moved to 'the appropriate regions'. The Kremlin has, however, urged caution on 'nuclear rhetoric'. 'It is obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty. This is an ongoing process, that's the first thing,' Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters. 'But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,' he added. 'Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric.' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had in December warned against what he called 'destabilising actions' by the US and its NATO allies. Russia has also threatened to respond against a planned deployment of US missiles in Germany from 2026. When did the US withdraw from the treaty and why? The US withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019 during Trump's first term, citing Russian non-compliance. Trump had accused Moscow of breaching the treaty by developing and deploying the land-based, nuclear-capable Novator 9M729 missile system, dubbed SSC-X-8 by NATO. Moscow said the missile's range (500km) was shorter than the threshold set in the 1987 treaty. Trump had also cited the development of such missiles by China, which was not a party to the agreement. Under former US President Barack Obama, Trump's predecessor, Washington had moved to boost its military capabilities in the Asia Pacific to counter China's military power. But during his first seven months in power, Trump has largely been consumed by his tariff wars against allies and rivals alike. He has rolled back a steep tariff he had imposed on China in early April, even as a report by US intelligence agencies in March said that Beijing is now the US's top military and cyber-threat. And in recent days, he has turned his attention to Russia, trying to pressure it to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine. The West believes that Russia's Oreshnik ballistic missile – which it fired in Ukraine last November – violates the INF treaty. The missile has a range of 500km (311 miles). Last week, Putin announced the deployment of the missile in Belarus, which shares a 1,084km (674 miles) border with Ukraine. Russia also revamped its nuclear doctrine last year, formally lowering its threshold for use of nuclear weapons. Which other disarmament agreements have the two countries withdrawn from? The US and the Soviet Union – the two most militarised nations at the time – were engaged in an arms race until the collapse of the communist nation in 1991. The two sides, however, signed a number of agreements, such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the INF, as part of arms control measures. President George W Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, which was aimed at keeping Russia and the US from creating missile defences. During his first term in office, Trump also withdrew from the 1992 Open Skies Treaty in 2020. Two years later, Russia followed suit, walking out of the treaty that allowed countries to fly over each other's territory to conduct unarmed observation flights. Which security agreements are still in place between the US and Russia? The New START Treaty, which stands for 'Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty', remains the last major arms control agreement between Russia and the US. The treaty signed in 2010 caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads the two countries can deploy. It came into force in February 2011. Under the agreement, the two sides committed to the following: Deploying no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads and a maximum of 700 long-range missiles and bombers. A limit of 800 intercontinental ballistic missiles in deployment. Each side can conduct up to 18 inspections of strategic nuclear weapons sites yearly to ensure the other has not breached the treaty's limits. But in 2023, Putin announced Moscow was suspending its participation in the pact, accusing Washington of non-compliance with its provisions and of trying to undermine Russia's national security. That treaty expires next year. The Russian decision came months after the US stopped exchanging data on its nuclear weapons stockpiles under the New START Treaty.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
India accuses US, EU of Russia trade double standards: Who is right?
India on Monday hit back at the United States and European Union over sanctions, tariffs and threats that it has faced from them in recent days over its purchase of Russian oil amid the war on Ukraine. New Delhi accused the US and EU of themselves importing substantial volumes of goods – including energy in the case of Europe – from Russia, while punishing India. India's strongest pushback yet, against mounting pressure from Washington and Brussels on trade and its ties with Russia, came hours after US President Donald Trump threatened to significantly increase tariffs he had previously announced against Indian goods. Trump had last week imposed a 25 percent tariff on imports from India, which is expected to kick in from August 7. In a Monday social media post, however, he said he 'will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA' because of India's imports of Russian crude. In late July, the EU also slapped sanctions on Nayara, one of India's two big private oil refiners, which is Russian-majority owned. The bloc also banned the import of refined oil made from Russian crude, again hurting Indian refiners. Until Monday night, India's response had been muted. That has now changed. Two hours after Trump's latest announcement, New Delhi issued a statement accusing the US and EU of double standards and of, in fact, quietly encouraging India to buy Russian crude earlier. As India's relations with the West – otherwise warm and growing until recently – now fray over its purchase of Russian energy, how true are New Delhi's claims that the West is as guilty of enabling the Kremlin's war machine as those it blames? What did India say on Monday? After hesitating for days to publicly take on Washington and Brussels directly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government issued a terse statement on August 4, calling the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable'. 'Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, in words that suggest New Delhi is in no mood to back down. But Jaiswal also directly pushed back against suggestions from the US and EU that India – in buying large volumes of Russian crude – had acted in a way that broke with the West's own behaviour. 'In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,' Jaiswal said, referring to Russia's full-fledged invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. 'The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets' stability,' he added. He said India's decision to import Russian oil was 'meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer'. 'However, it is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia,' he added. The EU, he said, had traded more with Russia in goods in 2024 than India had. 'European imports of LNG in 2024, in fact, reached a record 16.5 million tonnes, surpassing the last record of 15.21 million tonnes in 2022,' Jaiswal said. The US, meanwhile, 'continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals,' the spokesperson said. India's response is not surprising, said Biswajit Dhar, a trade economist who has been involved with multiple Indian trade negotiations. 'The aggressiveness that the Trump administration has shown – there had to be some reaction from India,' he told Al Jazeera. 'For a sovereign country to hear this kind of a threat from another country is unacceptable.' How significant are the US, EU sanctions and tariffs against India? India's pushback reflects just how much is at stake for its economy. The US is India's largest export destination: Americans bought $87bn worth of Indian goods in 2024. By contrast, India imported $41bn worth of US goods last year, leading to a large $46bn trade deficit for the US. Trump's earlier threat of 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods was already threatening to dramatically disrupt that trade. His announcement of even higher tariffs could bleed India's export revenue further. Brussels' decision to bar the import of refined petroleum sourced from Russian crude could also batter the profits of Indian refineries. According to market intelligence firm S&P Global, Indian exports of petroleum products to Europe have jumped from $5.9bn in 2019 to $20.5bn, largely because of India's ability to buy subsidised Russian oil, refine it, and then sell it to the West. But stopping the purchase of Russian oil would come with its costs: After the US and Europe imposed tough sanctions on Moscow over its war on Ukraine, Russia offered discounted crude to India. The EU also introduced price caps on Russian oil shipped by European tankers. As a result, India saved billions of dollars, with Russia becoming its biggest source of imported crude. For India, say experts, it isn't just the economic calculations that make the recent threats and sanctions problematic. The West is 'just changing goalposts', Anil Trigunayat, a retired Indian diplomat, told Al Jazeera. 'So, India is just showing them the mirror with facts and figures now.' Did the US and EU encourage India to buy Russian oil until now? Trump, in his latest post targeting India, claimed that 'they don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine.' India is arguing that the same accusations levelled against it hold true against the US and EU – and that they actually acquiesced to New Delhi buying Russian oil when the West no longer wanted to. 'They (India) bought Russian oil because we wanted someone to buy Russian oil at a price cap – that was not a violation or anything, that was actually the design of the policy, because as a commodity, we did not want the price of oil to go up,' Eric Garcetti, the US ambassador to India under former President Joe Biden, said at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations in May 2024. 'They fulfilled that.' "India brought Russian Oil, because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil…", says US ambassador Garcetti on India buying Russian oil ; Adds,'no Price Cap violation, we did not want oil prices to go up..' — Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) May 11, 2024 The logic was simple: If no one had bought Russian oil, that would have shrunk the total available oil supply with the same global demand, driving up costs. As Garcetti pointed out, Indian purchases of Russian crude helped avoid that – while allowing the West to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Until July, the EU, too, had not imposed any restrictions on the import of petroleum products sourced from Russian crude. Is the West trading more with Russia than India is? That's the other major claim from India. And the facts suggest that New Delhi is right. According to the EU, its total trade with Russia was worth 67.5 billion euros ($77.9 bn) in 2024. India's total trade with Russia in 2024-25 was worth $68.7bn. To be sure, Europe's trade with Russia has fallen sharply, from 257.5 billion euros in 2021, before the invasion of Ukraine, while India's trade with Russia has surged from about $10bn before the COVID-19 pandemic. But data shows that the bloc continues to buy Russian gas. Since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the grouping has paid Moscow $105.6bn for gas imports – an amount equivalent to 75 percent of Russia's 2024 military budget – according to the Finnish think-tank, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, which has been tracking Russian energy trade through the war. In 2024, EU imports of Russian LNG rose 9 percent compared with the year before. Mineral fuels make up almost two-thirds of EU imports from Russia, followed by food, raw materials, machinery and transport equipment, according to the bloc. And the US does indeed still import a range of chemicals from Russia, as Jaiswal claimed. Total Russia-US trade in 2024 stood at $5.2bn, according to the US Trade Representative's office – though the numbers are down significantly from 2021, when their trade in goods stood at $36bn. Given this backdrop, the Indian foreign ministry was 'absolutely right to call out the US and EU', Jayati Ghosh, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Al Jazeera. 'They are still importing from Russia. They're allowed to do it, we are not. That's ridiculous.' Is this all a trade negotiating tactic? Some Indian experts believe that the threats and tariffs from Trump are bargaining measures aimed at securing a trade deal with India that is favourable to the US. The two countries have been locked in negotiations over a trade agreement to minimise Trump's tariffs but have yet to agree on a pact, even though India has cut tariffs on several US imports. A key sticking point is agriculture, where India has long imposed high tariffs to protect its farm sector, which represents about half of the country's population. 'The way the Trump administration has been demanding that India open its market to US agri-business – that's a no-go for India,' Dhar said. 'Our small farmers will face a serious adverse situation; so it's economically and politically completely unacceptable to India.' Ghosh echoed those sentiments. 'There's no question of giving in on agriculture,' she said. 'In India, you cannot give in and allow US heavily subsidised multinational conglomerates to invade our markets, when a majority of our population still depends on agriculture for a livelihood.' But in recent weeks, Trump has also tried to ramp up pressure on Russia to agree to a ceasefire deal with Ukraine, and choking Moscow's oil exports would make it harder for Russian President Vladimir Putin to sustain his economy. On Monday, Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accused India of 'financing this (Russia's) war'.
