Federal Court Blocks Trump's Tariffs, Upholds Judicial Independence
A federal court ruled against Trump's tariffs, stating they exceed presidential authority, marking a significant setback for his trade policy.
Overview
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked President Trump's attempt to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), stating that the law does not grant such authority. This decision follows multiple lawsuits challenging Trump's trade policies, which critics argue have created economic chaos. The court emphasized that tariffs must be approved by Congress, not unilaterally imposed by the president. The ruling is expected to be appealed by the Trump administration, which argues that the tariffs are necessary to address national emergencies related to trade deficits.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.
Get both sides in 5 minutes with our daily newsletter.
Analysis
Left
The articles highlight judicial rulings against Trump's executive orders, emphasizing their unconstitutional nature and the importance of an independent judiciary.
They portray Trump's actions as punitive, reflecting frustration and anger towards the judiciary's pushback against his administration.
The rulings are seen as victories for constitutional rights, free speech, and legal representation, showcasing accountability in the judicial system.
Center
The articles present a negative view of President Trump's tariff policies and their implications for small businesses.
They highlight legal challenges and court rulings that question Trump's authority to impose tariffs.
Critical responses from the White House reflect a contentious political environment surrounding these issues.
Right
The articles present a negative view of Trump's tariffs, focusing on legal limitations and court rulings against his authority.
They emphasize the implications of the court's decisions on executive power and Trump's economic policies.
A neutral perspective is also provided, discussing the legal reasoning without strong emotional language.
Left
The articles highlight judicial rulings against Trump's executive orders, emphasizing their unconstitutional nature and the importance of an independent judiciary.
They portray Trump's actions as punitive, reflecting frustration and anger towards the judiciary's pushback against his administration.
The rulings are seen as victories for constitutional rights, free speech, and legal representation, showcasing accountability in the judicial system.
Center
The articles present a negative view of President Trump's tariff policies and their implications for small businesses.
They highlight legal challenges and court rulings that question Trump's authority to impose tariffs.
Critical responses from the White House reflect a contentious political environment surrounding these issues.
Right
The articles present a negative view of Trump's tariffs, focusing on legal limitations and court rulings against his authority.
They emphasize the implications of the court's decisions on executive power and Trump's economic policies.
A neutral perspective is also provided, discussing the legal reasoning without strong emotional language.
Articles (15)
MSNBC·18d·"…In other words, four of the targeted firms fought back rather than give in, and all four have — at least for now — prevailed, stopping Trump’s gambit in its tracks."
Salon·17d·"…The ruling is merely the latest judicial hindrance to Trump's second-term agenda."
The Guardian·17d·"…The ruling, if it stands, blows a giant hole through Trump’s strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners, draw manufacturing jobs back to US shores and shrink a $1.2tn US goods trade deficit, which were among his key campaign promises."
The Guardian·18d·"…The orders have been part of a broader effort by Trump to reshape US civil society by targeting perceived adversaries in hopes of extracting concessions from them and bending them to his will."
CNN·18d·"…The Court’s decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients."
Chicago Sun-Times·17d·"…The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing that Trump has exceeded his authority, left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims and unleashed economic chaos."
USA TODAY·17d·"…The unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel states the IEEPA "does not authorize" Trump's tariffs and orders them halted."
CBS News·18d·"…U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued his opinion Tuesday afternoon, blocking the president's efforts to restrict Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP as a part of the Trump administration's crusade against large law firms that have provoked the ire of the president and his allies."
Associated Press·18d·"…The orders have been part of a broader effort by the president to reshape American civil society by targeting perceived adversaries in hopes of extracting concessions from them and bending them to his will."
Reason·18d·"…The Order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its clients!"
Fox Business·17d·"…The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder."
Boston Herald·18d·"…The ruling was similar to one from Friday by a different judge that rejected a Trump edict against the firm of Jenner & Block and another one from earlier in the month in favor of the firm Perkins Coie."
Washington Examiner·18d·"…The order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm’s ability to effectively represent its clients!"
New York Sun·17d·"…The decision to declare the Trump tariffs illegal was simply signed 'by the panel' and was released on Wednesday night."
The Daily Wire·17d·"…The order strikes a blow to what had been one of the key pillars of Trump’s economic policy."
FAQ
History
- 18d8 articles