import

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump said Saturday that he plans to hike tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by an extra 10% because of an anti-tariff television ad aired by the province of Ontario.

The ad used the words of former President Reagan to criticize U.S. tariffs, angering Trump, who said he would end trade talks with Canada. Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford said he would pull the ad after the weekend, and it ran Friday night during the first game of the World Series.

“Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform as he flew aboard Air Force One to Malaysia.

“Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now.”

The ad used a recording of Reagan criticizing tariffs, though his comments were edited. He often criticized government policies — including protectionist measures such as tariffs — that interfered with free commerce and he spent much of that 1987 radio address spelling out the case against tariffs.

Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will both attend the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Malaysia. But Trump told reporters traveling with him that he had no intention of meeting Carney there.

Schiefelbein writes for the Associated Press.

Three Sydney dockworkers were charged for 1,116-pound cocaine and $330,000 cash seized following a Multi Agency Strike Team investigation into trusted insiders facilitating the importation of illicit drugs.
File Photo by Angelina Katsanis/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 2 (UPI) — Australian authorities charged three Sydney dockworkers over a shipment of cocaine and money found hidden in a false wall.

The shipment of 1,116 pounds of cocaine, with a street value of roughly $107 million, and $215,000 in cash were seized following an investigation by the Multi Agency Strike Team, which was formed in April 2025, Australian Federal Police and the NSW Police Force said in a joint statement.

A 25-year-old man and a 38-year-old man were charged with importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and attempting to posess a commercial quantity of cocaine.

The 38-year-old, who worked as a forklift driver, was seen moving shipping containers to gain access to the container where the cocaine was eventually found.

Police arrested the 25-year-old after he left the shipping container and found a crowbar, angle grinder, ear protection, portable lights and hand tools they alleged he was using to create a false wall in the shipping container where authorities found 506 blocks of white powder that was confirmed to be cocaine.

Upon executing a search warrant at the 38-year-old’s home, authorities where a 42-year-old man was intercepted while leaving the property and found with more than $130,000 in cash.

He was charged with dealing with money believed to be proceeds of general crime.

The two older men were employed by a global shipping and logistics company as forklift drivers, the company has not yet been named.

All three, if convicted, face potential life sentences.

The 42-year-old man was released but the others remain in custody.

Their next court date is Oct. 29. Where all of them will be present.

The source of the cocaine remains under investigation but the shipping container was sent from Europe.

“To anyone lured in by the false promise of riches from drug importations, these offences carry the potential of life in jail,” AFP Detective Superintendent Peter Fogarty said.

ATHENS — The end of an exemption on tariff duties for low-value packages coming into the United States is causing multiple international postal services to pause shipping to the U.S. as they await more clarity on the rule.

The exemption, known as the “de minimis” exemption, allows packages worth less than $800 to come into the U.S. duty-free. A total of 1.36 billion packages were sent in 2024 under this exemption, for goods worth $64.6 billion, according to data from the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agency.

It is set to expire Friday. On Saturday, postal services around Europe announced that they are suspending the shipment of many packages to the United States amid confusion over new import duties.

Postal services in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Italy said they will stop shipping most merchandise to the U.S. effective immediately. France and Austria will follow Monday.

The U.K.’s Royal Mail said it would halt shipments to the U.S. on Tuesday to allow time for those packages to arrive before duties kick in. Items originating in the U.K. worth over $100 — including gifts to friends and family — will incur a 10% duty, it said.

“Key questions remain unresolved, particularly regarding how and by whom customs duties will be collected in the future, what additional data will be required, and how the data transmission to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be carried out,” DHL, the largest shipping provider in Europe, said in a statement.

The company said that starting Saturday it “will no longer be able to accept and transport parcels and postal items containing goods from business customers destined for the U.S.”

A trade framework agreed on by the U.S. and the European Union last month set a 15% tariff on the vast majority of products shipped from the EU. Packages under $800 will now also be subject to the tariff.

The U.S. duty-free exemption for goods originating from China ended in May as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to curb American shoppers from ordering low-value Chinese goods. The exemption is being extended to shipments from around the world.

Many European postal services say they are pausing deliveries now because they cannot guarantee the goods will enter the U.S. before Aug. 29. They cite ambiguity about what kind of goods are covered by the new rules, and the lack of time to process their implications.

Postnord, the Nordic logistics company, and Italy’s postal service announced similar suspensions effective Saturday.

“In the absence of different instructions from US authorities … Poste Italiane will be forced, like other European postal operators, to temporarily suspend acceptance of all shipments containing goods destined for the United States, starting August 23. Mail shipments not containing merchandise will continue to be accepted,” Poste Italiane said in a statement Friday.

Shipping by services such as DHL Express remains possible, it added.

Bjorn Bergman, head of PostNord’s Group Brand and Communication, said the pause was “unfortunate but necessary to ensure full compliance of the newly implemented rules.”

In the Netherlands, PostNL spokesperson Wout Witteveen said the Trump administration is pressing ahead with the new duties despite U.S. authorities lacking a system to collect them. He said that PostNL is working closely with its U.S. counterparts to find a solution.

“If you have something to send to America, you should do it today,” Witteveen told the Associated Press.

Austrian Post, Austria’s leading logistics and postal service provider, stated that the last acceptance of commercial shipments to the U.S., including Puerto Rico, will take place Tuesday.

France’s national postal service, La Poste, said the U.S. did not provide full details or allow enough time for the French postal service to prepare for new customs procedures.

″Despite discussions with U.S. customs services, no time was provided to postal operators to re-organize and assure the necessary computer updates to conform to the new rules,″ it said in a statement.

PostEurop, an association of 51 European public postal operators, said that if no solution can be found by Aug. 29, all its members will probably follow suit.

Nellas and Anderson write for the Associated Press and reported from Athens and New York, respectively. AP writers Angela Charlton in Paris; Costas Kantouris in Thessaloniki, Greece; Stephanie Lichtenstein in Vienna; Brian Melley in London and Molly Quell in Amsterdam contributed to this report.