legality

Oct. 17 (UPI) — The federal shutdown will last at least a few more days as the Senate expects to hold no votes until Monday. Meanwhile, lawmakers are questioning the legality of how the Trump administration plans to pay the military.

Senate Republican leader John Thune of South Dakota sent senators home for the weekend, so the government will stay closed. The Senate will return at 3 p.m. Monday.

Three Democrats have voted for the Republican bills to reopen the government, but five more are needed to reach the 60 votes needed to pass the stopgap funding bill.

Meanwhile, some Republican senators are questioning the legality of President Donald Trump‘s move to shift Defense Department funds to pay for military paychecks during the shutdown.

They say they’re glad the service members are getting paid, but aren’t sure where the funds are coming from and whether the money shift is legal.

Normally, the White House would need to ask Congress to reappropriate federal funding, then the Appropriations Committee must approve it before moving funds around.

Senators interviewed by The Hill say they aren’t aware of any requests. Trump ordered Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to use “all available funds” to ensure troops got their paychecks.

“That’s a concern of not just appropriators, it seems broader than that,” an unnamed Republican senator told The Hill.

The lawmaker said Republican colleagues have asked the administration for more information about exactly which funds are getting shifted and what legal authority the White House is using to justify its action.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she wants more information from the White House.

“We’ve been given two different explanations. One, is that it’s unobligated balances. One, is that it’s taken from certain research and technology programs. But we don’t have the specifics. We have asked for the specifics,” Collins said.

Alaska’s Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said: “I get that they say for the military pay for this pay period it comes out of … research and development technology [fund] but where? Is that taking it from projects that we have already identified? Maybe something’s really important to me. Where’s it coming from? We haven’t seen that,” she said.

On Wednesday, Trump signed a memo expanding his administration’s authority to repurpose unspent funds to pay service members during the shutdown.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said Trump’s reallocation of funds was, “probably not legal.” On Face the Nation on Sunday, he said the “White House’s understanding of United States law” was “pretty tentative to say the best.”

The Supreme Court has scheduled to hear the case in November, lightning fast by its typical standards.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an unusually quick hearing on whether President Donald Trump has the power to impose sweeping tariffs under federal law.

The justices said on Tuesday that they will hear arguments in November, which is lightning fast by the typical standards of the nation’s highest court.

The small businesses and states that challenged the tariffs in court also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump illegally used emergency powers to set import taxes on goods from almost every country in the world, nearly driving their businesses to bankruptcy.

The justices also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.

Two lower courts have found that most of the tariffs were illegally imposed, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The levies are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January, which has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and driven global economic uncertainty.

Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on countries. Revenue from tariffs totalled $159bn by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and that the country would be on “the brink of economic catastrophe” if the president were barred from exercising unilateral tariff authority.

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the US Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs.

Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

Impact on trade negotiations

US Solicitor General D John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already impacting those trade negotiations. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it has collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against the tariffs could even hamper the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It does not include his levies on foreign steel, aluminium and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

New York Yankees manager Aaron Boone questioned the legality of a bat used by Houston Astros outfielder Taylor Trammell during Thursday’s series finale.

Down by five runs in the bottom of the ninth inning, Houston mounted a comeback by starting off the inning with a single by catcher Victor Caratini and a double off the wall by Trammell. After the at-bat, Boone asked the umpires to check the bat used by the 27-year-old because of its “discoloration.”

Rule 3.02(c) by Major League Baseball bans the usage of a “colored bat in a professional game” unless approved by the league.

The crew chief, Adrian Johnson, took the bat and called a review to verify the legality of the discoloration on barrel.

After the review, the bat was confiscated by the umpires, authenticated and sent to the league office to be inspected, according to Astros manager Joe Espada.

“The bat was worn down a little bit,” Espada said. “He uses that bat all the time and I guess they thought it was an illegal bat.

“I thought it was … whatever,” he added.

Boone said they noticed the color of the bat earlier in the series and brought it up to the league officials on Thursday.

“You’re not allowed to do anything to your bat,” Boone said after the game. “I’m not saying he was … we noticed it and the league thought it maybe it was illegal too.”

After the game, the outfielder remained confused.

“I feel kind of defensive right now, more so a test of my character, like I’m going to willingly do that,” Trammell said. “Just kind of lost on that thing, and if anyone knows me, knows I’m never going to cheat or anything like that.”

Trammell, who played a couple of games for the Yankees last season, stayed on second base. The Astros later scored a run on a single by designated hitter Yordan Alvarez but the Yankees held on to win the game 8-4.

Oral arguments over United States President Donald Trump’s power to impose tariffs have kicked off before a US appeals court after a lower court ruled he had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping new levies on imported goods.

The appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned whether what Trump calls his “reciprocal” tariffs, announced in April, were justified by the president’s claim of emergency powers.

A panel of all the court’s active judges – eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by Republican presidents – is hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states.

The judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs.

Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.

The judges frequently interrupted Shumate, peppering him with a flurry of challenges to his arguments.

“IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs, doesn’t even mention them,” one of the judges said.

Shumate said the law allows for “extraordinary” authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorises tariffs because it allows a president to “regulate” imports in a crisis.

The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued they are not permissible under IEEPA and the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes.

Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government’s argument that the word “regulate” includes the power to tax would be a vast expansion of presidential power.

Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government as customs duties in June quadrupled to about $27bn, a record, and through June have topped $100bn for the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from extended tax cuts in a Trump-supported bill that passed and became law this month.

“Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today.”

But economists said the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies’ ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.

Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said the tariffs are a “regressive tax” that is making household items more expensive.

Since Trump began imposing his wave of tariffs, companies ranging from carmaker Stellantis to American Airlines, temporarily suspended financial guidance for investors, which has since started again but has been revised down. Companies across multiple industries, including Procter and Gamble, the world’s largest consumer goods brand, announced this week that it would need to raise prices on a quarter of its goods.

The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices.

Pressure outside trade

Trump has said the April tariffs, which he placed on most countries, are a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. However, in recent weeks, he’s used them to increase pressure on nontrade issues.

He hit Brazil with 50 percent tariffs over the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a key Trump ally who is on trial for an alleged coup attempt after he lost the 2022 presidential election.

Trump also threatened Canada over its move to recognise a Palestinian state, saying a trade deal will now be “very hard”.

He said tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop fentanyl from crossing US  borders. The countries have denied that claim.

On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that are challenging Trump.

It said IEEPA, a law intended to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies, did not authorise tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration’s appeal. The timing of the court’s decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court.

The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authorities, such as duties on steel and aluminium. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan after smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president’s tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations while other Trump officials have said negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set a deadline of Friday for higher tariffs on countries that don’t negotiate new trade deals.

There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump’s invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California.