u. s. court

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but left in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, a ruling that largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

But the 7-4 court did not strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The president vowed to do just that. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” Trump wrote on his social medial platform.

The ruling complicates Trump’s ambitions to upend decades of American trade policy completely on his own. Trump has alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. His tariffs — and the erratic way he’s rolled them out — have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

But he’s also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting one-sided trade deals and to bring tens of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury to help pay for the massive tax cuts he signed into law July 4.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.

“It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump said in a previous post on Truth Social.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.

Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Josh Boak contributed to this story.

WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid.

Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money.

In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid.

After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year.

The appeal court’s majority partially vacated Ali’s order.

Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress’ spending powers.

“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote.

Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held “in no uncertain terms” that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons.

“Yet that is what the majority enables today,” Pan wrote. “The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.

Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President 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 at a government attorney’s arguments.

Brett Schumate, 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 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 Schumate, 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].”

Schumate 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, 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 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 the 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.

Wiseman and Sedensky write for the Associated Press. Sedensky reported from New York.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the federal judge who has clashed with President Trump’s administration over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Escalating the administration’s conflict with U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said on social media that she directed the filing of the complaint against Boasberg “for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.”

The complaint stems from remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March to Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges saying the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by the Associated Press.

The comments “have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the complaint says, adding that the administration has “always complied with all court orders.” Boasberg is among several judges who have questioned whether the administration has complied with their orders.

The meeting took place days before Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law.

The judge’s verbal order to turn around planes that were on the way to El Salvador was ignored. Boasberg has since found probable cause that the administration committed contempt of court.

The comments were supposedly made during a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s governing body. The remarks were first reported by the conservative website The Federalist, which said it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting.

Boasberg, the chief judge in the district court in the nation’s capital, is a member of the Judicial Conference. Its meetings are not public.

The complaint calls for an investigation, the reassignment of the deportations case to another judge while the inquiry is ongoing and sanctions, including the possible recommendation of impeachment, if the investigation substantiates the allegations.

Trump himself already has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, which in turn prompted a rare response from Roberts rejecting the call.

The complaint was filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

More than 250 Venezuelans who were deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, were sent home to Venezuela earlier this month in a deal that also free 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who had been held by Venezuela.

But the lawsuit over the deportations and the administration’s response to Boasberg’s order remains in his court.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump’s tariff strategy has been thrown into turmoil after a U.S. court issued a rare rebuke blocking many of the import taxes he has threatened and imposed on other countries.

In a ruling issued late Wednesday, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade declared that the Trump administration had wrongly invoked a 1977 law in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs on dozens of countries and they were therefore illegal. It also extended that ruling to previous tariffs levied on Canada, Mexico and China over the security of the U.S. border and trafficking in fentanyl.

The Trump administration immediately said it would appeal, putting the fate of the tariffs in the hands of an appellate court and potentially the Supreme Court. The ruling doesn’t affect Trump’s first-term levies on many imports from China or sectoral duties planned or already imposed on goods including steel, which are based on a different legal foundation that the Trump administration may now be forced to make more use of to pursue its tariff campaign.

It’s unclear just how fast Wednesday’s ruling will go into effect, with the court giving the government up to 10 days to carry out the necessary administrative moves to remove the tariffs. But if the decision holds, it would in a matter of days eliminate new 30% U.S. tariffs on imports from China, 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico and 10% duties on most other goods entering the U.S.

Those tariffs and the prospect of retaliatory ones have been seen as a significant drag on U.S. and global growth and eliminating them — even temporarily — would improve prospects for the world’s major economies.

There is uncertainty over whether the ruling represents a permanent setback to Trump’s push to reshape global trade or a mere impediment. Trump and his supporters have attacked judges as biased and his administration has been accused of failing to fully comply with other court orders, raising questions over whether it will do so this time.

A White House spokesperson dismissed the ruling as one made by “unelected judges” who should not have the power “to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” Trump has invoked national emergencies ranging from the U.S. trade deficit to overdose deaths to justify many of his tariffs.

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

If the ruling isn’t reversed or ignored, one of the consequences could be greater fiscal concerns at a time when bond markets are questioning the trajectory of the U.S.’s mounting debt load. The Trump administration has been citing increased tariff revenues as a way to offset tax cuts in his “one big, beautiful bill” now before Congress, which is estimated to cost $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

U.S. importers paid a record $16.5 billion in tariffs in April and Trump’s aides have said they expected that to rise in the coming months.

Major trading partners including China, the European Union, India, and Japan that are in negotiations with the Trump’s administration must now decide whether to press ahead in efforts to secure deals or slow walk talks on the bet they now have a stronger hand.

Deal doubts

Also thrown into doubt would be the outlines for a trade deal that Trump reached with the UK earlier in May. That potential pact calls for the imposition of a 10% U.S. tariff on all imports from the UK that would be null and void if Wednesday’s decision endures.

“I don’t know why any country would want to engage in negotiations to get out of tariffs that have now been declared illegal,” said Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown Law School professor and former WTO judge and general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative. “It’s a very definitive decision that the reciprocal worldwide tariffs are simply illegal.”

Hillman and other legal experts pointed out that Trump has other legal authorities he can draw on. But none would give him as broad powers as those he invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

A provision of the 1974 trade act gives presidents the power to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days, though only in the event a balance of payments crisis, which Trump may not want to declare given the current nervous state of bond markets, Hillman said.

Trump could also invoke other authorities to impose tariffs on individual sectors or countries, as he did in his first term. In recent months, he has already used national security powers to impose duties on imported steel, aluminum and cars and launched seven other investigations pertaining to things like pharmaceuticals, lumber and critical minerals.

“The Trump administration’s toolbox won’t be completely empty,” Dmitry Grozoubinski, director of ExplainTrade and author of the book “Why Politicians Lie About Trade” said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. But as for IEEPA, “if they comply with this ruling that takes that toy out of the toy box.”

More uncertainty

Wednesday’s ruling came in two parallel cases brought by a conservative group on behalf of a small business and U.S. states controlled by Democrats.

“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the conservative Liberty Justice Center, which brought one of the cases.

For many other businesses, it brought the prospect of yet another sharp turn in U.S. tariff policies and more short-term questions and headaches.

Southern California-based Freight Right Global Logistics has several shipments on the water now for clients all over the U.S., carrying goods largely from China. Those containers are filled with everything from toys to robots, and it’s very uncertain what the tariff burden will be for those shipments when they land, said Freight Right Chief Executive Robert Khachatryan.

Khachatryan fielded questions Wednesday evening from his clients on potential refunds, which tariffs will be removed, and what would be the effective dates.

“We are working hard to answer customers questions but the reality is that there is not enough information out there yet,” he said. “Tomorrow we’re going to be all over the place figuring out what this means in practice.”

Donnan, Larson and Curtis write for Bloomberg News.