Judges Question Trump Tariff Authority 08/01 06:15

   

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism 
Thursday over President Donald Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive 
round of tariffs.

   Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's 
insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional 
approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act to do so.

   "IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere," Circuit Judge 
Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government 
attorney's arguments.

   Brett Shumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, 
acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing "no president has ever read IEEPA this 
way" but contended it was nonetheless lawful.

   The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to 
seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first 
used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of 
global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.

   Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise 
qualifies for the law's protection.

   In sharp exchanges with Shumate, appellate judges questioned that 
contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, 
whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified.

   "If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness," Chief 
Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, "and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that 
doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it)."

   Shumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president "broad and 
flexible" power to respond to an emergency, but that "the president is not 
asking for unbounded authority."

   But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's 
maneuver as a "breathtaking" power grab that amounted to saying "the president 
can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as 
he declares an emergency."

   No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' 
deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme 
Court.

   Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: "To all 
of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in 
America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by 
using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE "DEAD," WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL 
OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!''

   In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that "a national 
emergency exists" necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the 
U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was 
unconvinced, however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers.

   The issue now rests with the appeals judges.

   The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an 
administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil 
more on Friday.

   The case centers on Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs of April 2 
that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other 
tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed 
on China during Trump's first term, and continued by President Joe Biden.

   The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped 
his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs 
include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a 
company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear.

   The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes -- 
including tariffs -- but over decades, lawmakers have ceded power over trade 
policy to the White House.

   Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff 
to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at 
Yale University.

   The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident 
after the hearing, arguing that the judges "didn't buy'' the Trump 
administration's arguments. "You would definitely rather be in our shoes going 
forward,'' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.

   Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs -- which are paid by importers in the 
United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers 
-- amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. "This was 
done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office," he said.