Latest news with #LibertyJusticeCenter
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Business
- Straits Times
Trump's Brazil trade squeeze gives tariff challengers fresh legal ammunition
U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Brazil with 50% tariffs this month, venting his anger over the country's prosecution of his political ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, but the move may provide ammunition to plaintiffs aiming to bring down the centerpiece of the White House's tariff agenda. Trade law experts and plaintiffs in a federal court challenge to Trump's sweeping tariffs, which are backed by the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), say the president's outburst against Brazil is another prime example of him far exceeding any legal authority to levy tariffs. "It just shows that the president really thinks that he has unconstrained power to tariff. That's a big problem for our clients, but also it's a big problem for the rule of law," said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and interim director of litigation at the nonprofit Liberty Justice Center. Schwab is representing five small businesses that won the first round of a legal challenge to Trump's use of IEEPA to impose sweeping "reciprocal" and fentanyl-related tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. Schwab said he expects the threatened U.S. tariffs on Brazil to come up during oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington on Thursday. The New York-based Court of International Trade found in May that Trump exceeded his legal authority by using IEEPA, but the appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the case plays out - likely all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling, if it stands, could blow a hole in Trump's tariff blitz, which so far has extracted concessions from a number of major trading partners, including Japan, the European Union, Indonesia, Vietnam and Britain. South Korea, Canada and Mexico are racing to negotiate deals with Trump to avoid steep tariff hikes on August 1. 'THIS BRAZIL NONSENSE' The 50% tariff that would apply to Brazil on August 1 is the highest "reciprocal" rate announced by Trump, matched only by tiny Lesotho. Brazil is hoping to negotiate a deal to reduce the duties but has acknowledged that may not happen before the deadline as Trump focuses on larger trading partners. The stakes are high for Brazil because the U.S. is the country's second-largest trading partner after China. Trump announced the Brazilian tariffs after a week of public feuding with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the leftist leader who narrowly defeated Bolsonaro in a 2022 election. A week after Lula's inauguration, Bolsonaro supporters stormed government buildings in Brasilia in an alleged plot to reinstate the right-wing former military officer as president. Bolsonaro is currently on trial in connection with the alleged coup and has been forced to wear an electronic ankle bracelet restraint. He has denied all the charges. In a July 9 letter to Lula announcing the tariffs, Trump said the trial was a "Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!" The U.S. president cited Brazil's "insidious attacks on Free Elections and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans" and "unlawful censorship orders" on U.S. social media platforms. The letter did not specify whether the tariffs would be imposed under the IEEPA national emergency that Trump declared over the large and growing global U.S. trade deficit. Trump has not issued a formal executive proclamation and a White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. But the letter contained some language identical to tariff letters issued to other countries, explaining that the import levies were necessary to correct "unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States." The U.S. has had consistent goods trade surpluses with Brazil since 2008, with a $6.8 billion surplus in 2024. Brazil was initially subjected to a 10% tariff as part of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcement in early April. "The bottom line for me is, yes, I believe the plaintiffs can and will use this Brazil nonsense as further evidence that these tariffs are being imposed at the absolute whim of the president," said Jennifer Hillman, a trade law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. The 50% Brazil duties "bear no relationship to a national emergency in the United States," Hillman said. "They have nothing to do with a trade deficit, even if you can define a trade deficit that we've been running consistently for 50 years as unusual and extraordinary." Daniel Esty, a professor at Yale Law School, said that even if an argument can be made for trade deficits as a national emergency under IEEPA, Trump's tariffs to punish Brazil for acting against a former president are not legal. "That is so clearly outside the bounds of the law as to be shocking," Esty added. Hillman served as counsel to a group of 191 Democratic lawmakers who filed an amicus brief in the appeals case, arguing among other things, that Congress never intended for IEEPA to delegate tariff authority to the president, as there were other laws in place to deal with it. The Court of International Trade followed this reasoning, and found that the fentanyl-related tariffs levied against China, Canada and Mexico failed to deal with an IEEPA national emergency that Trump declared over the deadly opioid. MORE DURABLE ALTERNATIVES In his letter to Lula, Trump also ordered a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation into Brazil's tariff and non-tariff barriers, including on digital trade. Brazil's Solicitor General Jorge Messias, the top judicial official for Lula's executive branch, said last week he believes Trump launched the probe because the case for IEEPA tariffs is weak. Daniel Cannistra, a partner with the law firm Crowell & Moring, said there was a growing consensus among Washington trade lawyers that the IEEPA-based tariffs are at significant risk of being struck down. But that process could take months, allowing the Trump administration time to use them to apply maximum pressure on trading partners. At the same time, the administration is pursuing tariffs under well-established trade laws, including under Section 301 and through sectoral tariffs on autos, steel, aluminum and copper under the Section 232 national security trade law. Other duties on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and lumber are in the process of being applied. For some of the biggest U.S. trading partners including Japan, relief from these tariffs - especially the prohibitive 27.5% automotive tariff - may be a bigger motivator to make trade concessions that would continue regardless of the IEEPA rulings. "By threatening more legally sound tariffs, the administration can continue negotiating with little regard to the legality of the IEEPA tariffs," Cannistra said. REUTERS
Reuters
an hour ago
- Business
- Reuters
Trump's Brazil trade squeeze gives tariff challengers fresh legal ammunition
July 30 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Brazil with 50% tariffs this month, venting his anger over the country's prosecution of his political ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, but the move may provide ammunition to plaintiffs aiming to bring down the centerpiece of the White House's tariff agenda. Trade law experts and plaintiffs in a federal court challenge to Trump's sweeping tariffs, which are backed by the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), say the president's outburst against Brazil is another prime example of him far exceeding any legal authority to levy tariffs. "It just shows that the president really thinks that he has unconstrained power to tariff. That's a big problem for our clients, but also it's a big problem for the rule of law," said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and interim director of litigation at the nonprofit Liberty Justice Center. Schwab is representing five small businesses that won the first round of a legal challenge to Trump's use of IEEPA to impose sweeping "reciprocal" and fentanyl-related tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. Schwab said he expects the threatened U.S. tariffs on Brazil to come up during oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington on Thursday. The New York-based Court of International Trade found in May that Trump exceeded his legal authority by using IEEPA, but the appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the case plays out - likely all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling, if it stands, could blow a hole in Trump's tariff blitz, which so far has extracted concessions from a number of major trading partners, including Japan, the European Union, Indonesia, Vietnam and Britain. South Korea, Canada and Mexico are racing to negotiate deals with Trump to avoid steep tariff hikes on August 1. The 50% tariff that would apply to Brazil on August 1 is the highest "reciprocal" rate announced by Trump, matched only by tiny Lesotho. Brazil is hoping to negotiate a deal to reduce the duties but has acknowledged that may not happen before the deadline as Trump focuses on larger trading partners. The stakes are high for Brazil because the U.S. is the country's second-largest trading partner after China. Trump announced the Brazilian tariffs after a week of public feuding with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the leftist leader who narrowly defeated Bolsonaro in a 2022 election. A week after Lula's inauguration, Bolsonaro supporters stormed government buildings in Brasilia in an alleged plot to reinstate the right-wing former military officer as president. Bolsonaro is currently on trial in connection with the alleged coup and has been forced to wear an electronic ankle bracelet restraint. He has denied all the charges. In a July 9 letter to Lula announcing the tariffs, Trump said the trial was a "Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!" The U.S. president cited Brazil's "insidious attacks on Free Elections and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans" and "unlawful censorship orders" on U.S. social media platforms. The letter did not specify whether the tariffs would be imposed under the IEEPA national emergency that Trump declared over the large and growing global U.S. trade deficit. Trump has not issued a formal executive proclamation and a White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. But the letter contained some language identical to tariff letters issued to other countries, explaining that the import levies were necessary to correct "unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States." The U.S. has had consistent goods trade surpluses with Brazil since 2008, with a $6.8 billion surplus in 2024. Brazil was initially subjected to a 10% tariff as part of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcement in early April. "The bottom line for me is, yes, I believe the plaintiffs can and will use this Brazil nonsense as further evidence that these tariffs are being imposed at the absolute whim of the president," said Jennifer Hillman, a trade law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. The 50% Brazil duties "bear no relationship to a national emergency in the United States," Hillman said. "They have nothing to do with a trade deficit, even if you can define a trade deficit that we've been running consistently for 50 years as unusual and extraordinary." Daniel Esty, a professor at Yale Law School, said that even if an argument can be made for trade deficits as a national emergency under IEEPA, Trump's tariffs to punish Brazil for acting against a former president are not legal. "That is so clearly outside the bounds of the law as to be shocking," Esty added. Hillman served as counsel to a group of 191 Democratic lawmakers who filed an amicus brief, opens new tab in the appeals case, arguing among other things, that Congress never intended for IEEPA to delegate tariff authority to the president, as there were other laws in place to deal with it. The Court of International Trade followed this reasoning, and found that the fentanyl-related tariffs levied against China, Canada and Mexico failed to deal with an IEEPA national emergency that Trump declared over the deadly opioid. In his letter to Lula, Trump also ordered a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation into Brazil's tariff and non-tariff barriers, including on digital trade. Brazil's Solicitor General Jorge Messias, the top judicial official for Lula's executive branch, said last week he believes Trump launched the probe because the case for IEEPA tariffs is weak. Daniel Cannistra, a partner with the law firm Crowell & Moring, said there was a growing consensus among Washington trade lawyers that the IEEPA-based tariffs are at significant risk of being struck down. But that process could take months, allowing the Trump administration time to use them to apply maximum pressure on trading partners. At the same time, the administration is pursuing tariffs under well-established trade laws, including under Section 301 and through sectoral tariffs on autos, steel, aluminum and copper under the Section 232 national security trade law. Other duties on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and lumber are in the process of being applied. For some of the biggest U.S. trading partners including Japan, relief from these tariffs - especially the prohibitive 27.5% automotive tariff - may be a bigger motivator to make trade concessions that would continue regardless of the IEEPA rulings. "By threatening more legally sound tariffs, the administration can continue negotiating with little regard to the legality of the IEEPA tariffs," Cannistra said.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Student suspended for saying 'illegal aliens' in class gets cash, apology from school
A school district in North Carolina has been ordered to admit their mistake, issue an apology, fork over $20,000, and more after they were sued for suspending a 16-year-old student who used the term "illegal aliens." The settlement was approved on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, following a year-long legal battle after a 16-year-old student and his parents sued Davidson County Schools for the mischaracterization of racial bias and violation of the student's First Amendment rights. "Although the parties initially moved to seal the revised settlement agreement, they have since withdrawn any request to seal any version of their settlement," Judge Thomas Schroeder stated in his Tuesday order. The 16-year-old student was suspended in April of last year after using the term "illegal aliens" during an English class discussion. "Do you mean space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards?" the student asked. The student was later suspended for three days and marks denoting "racially insensitive behavior" were added to his permanent record. The story of Christian McGhee caught the eyes of Donald Trump, who wrote the student a personal recommendation letter as he seeks an athletic scholarship in the years ahead, according to the Liberty Justice Center, which helped with the litigation. In addition to the public apology required in the settlement, McGhee's school must correct his permanent record so it no longer denotes racial insensitivity and acknowledge "the inappropriate response to this matter by a former member." However, per Schroeder's order, the settlement does not amount to an admission of liability or wrongdoing. "As the Supreme Court has often reminded us in its First Amendment jurisprudence, students do not shed their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate. That it took a federal lawsuit and ultimately a court-approved settlement (including an apology to Christian, and a payment of $20,000) is indicative of how far lost many educators have become in the wake of the previous administration's identity politics obsession," Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at conservative nonprofit Defending Education, told Fox News Digital. "No more," Perry continued. "The mission of American education is rooted in the viewpoint diversity of a pluralistic society. Our hope is that after Christian's ordeal, schools will think twice about venturing into unconstitutional waters and trampling on the free speech rights of their students." According to the Liberty Justice Center, McGhee's mother spoke up in defense of her son after the incident happened, including at school board meetings, which led to an alleged attempt to smear her. The center claimed that two board members sent messages to county leaders and residents with the mother's arrest record and encouraged people to post it on social media. Neither Davidson County Schools, nor the district's board, responded to Fox News Digital's requests for comment.
Fox News
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Court approves settlement after North Carolina student suspended for 'illegal aliens' comment
A high school student's free speech battle against a North Carolina school board took an important step towards closure after a court hearing Tuesday. Christian McGhee, 17, was suspended last year after school officials deemed he made a "racially insensitive" comment about "illegal aliens" in class. The suspension led to a year-long legal battle with the Davidson County Board of Education. Last month, a proposed settlement was reportedly reached between McGhee's parents and the school board. On Tuesday, Judge Thomas David Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that the proposed settlement was "fair, reasonable and in the best interest of [Christian]," according to a press release released Wednesday by the student's legal representatives at the Liberty Justice Center. The school has reportedly agreed to remove the racial bias incident from McGhee's record, issue a public apology, and acknowledge that a former board member responded inappropriately to the incident. Additional terms of the agreement are sealed, but the New York Post reported that the family is also slated to receive a $20,000 payment. Because the student is a minor, a court hearing was required to finalize the settlement, according to the legal group. The teen received a 3-day suspension in the spring of 2024 after asking his teacher if a conversation in class was centered around "spaceship aliens" or "illegal aliens who need green cards" after he returned to the classroom from the restroom. A Latino student present in the class reportedly "joked" that he was going to "kick Christian's a--," leading the teacher to escalate the situation to the assistant principal. McGhee's mother, Leah, who was behind the legal push against the district, told "Fox & Friends" last year that their family tried "for weeks" to resolve the matter privately but were forced to file a lawsuit after getting no response from the school board. The lawsuit accused the school board of violating McGhee's constitutionally-protected rights to free speech and due process. "The court's approval represents a critical step towards finally vindicating Christian's constitutional rights and clearing his record of false allegations," Liberty Justice Center Senior Counsel Dean McGee said of this week's ruling. McGhee's parents said they were grateful and celebrating the legal win. "We are grateful for the Liberty Justice Center's tireless efforts to bring justice to our son, and to the members of the current school board who chose to work with us to help resolve the case," Leah and Chad McGhee said. "Together with the help of our community, we have proved that constitutional rights do not end at schoolhouse doors. We are celebrating this victory and hope it encourages other families to stand firm in the face of adversity." The Davidson County School Board did not immediately return a request for comment.
Yahoo
15-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: Trump tariffs collide with the law
The Trump administration's arbitrary moves to restructure the international trade environment to accommodate White House whims have suddenly run into reality — specifically, established laws. This confrontation is still in the early stages, but does not bode well for President Trump and his ardent protectionist associates. On May 28, the United States Court of International Trade went back to basics in a decision featuring the reminder that, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade. This fundamental power is not overridden by the ability of the president to address trade challenges in an emergency. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage,' a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. 'That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.' The ruling came in response to two lawsuits. One was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan organization, on behalf of five small U.S. companies that import goods from countries targeted by Trump's tariffs. The other was filed by a dozen state governments within the United States. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, is coordinating the states' efforts against the administration. He has declared the tariffs to be economically devastating, reckless and unlawful. Small businesses seeking relief include an importer of wine and other alcoholic beverages based in New York and a maker of educational kits and musical instruments located in Virginia. President Trump has been basing his unilateral tariff authority on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter near the end of December 1977. The law authorizes the president to declare 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,' with the proviso that such threats must originate 'in whole or substantial part outside the United States,' and requires the president to provide updates to Congress every six months. An incentive for this legislation was a desire in Congress to clarify and restrict presidential actions justified under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, a law which reflected the emergency leading to U.S. entry in World War I as a formal declared combatant. The immediate incentive for our nation to enter that war was declaration by Germany of unrestricted submarine warfare. The 1917 law had been used to justify a variety of presidential initiatives, not all related to foreign policy and international developments. Declared national emergencies then technically still in effect included the 1933 banking crisis, related to the hoarding of cash and gold; the 1950 Korean War crisis; a 1970 emergency related to a strike by postal workers; and a 1971 emergency related to the deteriorating fiscal condition of the federal government. Key powers granted include the ability to block transactions and take control of assets of the parties involved in the threats. This section was used by the Trump administration to justify the new tariffs. IEEPA was passed during a time of congressional assertiveness. Another important factor, no doubt, was President Carter's fixation on clear, orderly administration, which he carried to extremes. The severe national crises, traumas and wars described above contrast with today's long-term growth and prosperity, and blessed absence of direct involvement in war. The judicial veto of presidential overreach shows our system is working.
