Federal Court Repudiates Tariffs Imposed by White House, Labeled as "Judicial Interference"
Title: The White House Slams 'Judicial Overreach' Over Trump Admin's Tariffs
Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, slams an "egregious decision" from the court regarding the Trump administration's tariffs as "judicial overreach."
The W presidency is reeling from what seems to be another instance of judicial overreach, after the U.S. Court of International Trade, on a Wednesday ruling, stated that Trump administration exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) with the imposed tariffs.
Addressing reporters, Leavitt emphasized that "our democracy cannot survive if President Trump or any other president's (for that matter) trade and diplomatic negotiations are held captive by activist judges."
"Trump is pursuing a global trade revamp, bankrolling our nation with billions in tariff revenue, and ending decades of the U.S. being exploited. These judges are attempting to sabotage the nation's credibility on the global stage," Leavitt added.
The White House has promptly filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal alongside an administrative stay to quash this dubious decision. However, Leavitt urges the Supreme Court to intervene to preserve the Constitution and save the country from this predicament.
*COURT REPUDIATES TRUMP'S 'UNBOUNDED AUTHORITY' GLOBally*
In its Wednesday decision, the court argued that tariffs loom as an exclusive federal domain and that the Constitution assigns Congress the authority to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, and to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."
The crux of the court's decision rests on the question whether IEEPA vests the president with unlimited authority to impose tariffs globally. The court concluded that IEEPA's language is far from granting unbounded authority, and set aside the enacted tariffs.
The ruling judges – appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump himself – uniformly disagreed with the president's tariff strategy.
*TAIWAN PLEDGES TO BUY MORE AMERICAN GOODS, UNDER THREAT OF TRUMP'S TARIFF*
Leavitt announced Thursday that Trump, leveraging his legal weight, imposed universal tariffs and reciprocal tariffs to penalize foreign countries' trade surpluses that harm the U.S. economy. She berated the court's decision as an audacious power grab that threatens Trump's executive power to curb the mounting trade deficits.
Karoline Leavitt has also highlighted the numerous nationwide injunctions that have targeted the Trump administration, with the Trump presidency racking up injunctions in a single month, which exceed Joe Biden's injunctions over a three-year period.
Note: Though Obama and Reagan also faced numerous lawsuits, their rates were not as extreme as Trump.
Sources: Reuters, CNBC, The New York Times
Enrichment Data:- The current legal landscape suggests that, if higher courts eventually invalidate the tariffs, companies that paid the duties may become eligible for refunds.- The ongoing legal process could culminate in a Supreme Court case if the appeals process continues and the matter is elevated.- There are other legal challenges to the IEEPA tariffs in various federal courts that challenge the president's authority under IEEPA and may contribute to a broader legal debate that could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
- The White House has expressed concerns about the impact of the court's ruling on the president's policy-and-legislation regarding tariffs, as it questions the unlimited authority of the president to impose tariffs globally, potentially affecting the administration's revenue from tariffs and the general-news headlines about the economy and trading.
- Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, has urged the Supreme Court to intervene in the ongoing legal debate, stating that the nation's credibility on the global stage could be compromised if the court's decision stands, impacting the Trump administration's efforts to restructure global trade.
- The court's decision has been met with disagreement from the judges who were appointed by Reagan, Obama, and even Trump himself, suggesting a potential political dimension to the dispute, with implications for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches within policy-and-legislation and politics.
