US court largely stops Trump's tariffs

US court largely stops Trump's tariffs

A three-judge comprehensive committee of the US Court of International Trade, a rather unknown court in Manhattan, decided on Wednesday to stop the global tariffs of Trump, which he had imposed on emergency business law. This also includes the "liberation day" duties introduced on April 2. In addition, Trump is prevented from enforcing his tariffs, which he imposed on China, Mexico and Canada at the beginning of this year, which were intended to combat fentanyl trading in the United States.

court decision against Trump's tariffs

The court decided in favor of a permanent ban and stopped Trump's global tariffs before "deals" could be completed with most other trading partners. This means that the majority - but not all - are temporarily discontinued by Trump's tariffs.

effect of the decision on the markets

The decision rapidly rapidly the stock futures. The Dow Futures rose by almost 500 points, which corresponds to 1.1 %. The wider S&P 500 futures were 1.4 % higher, while the Nasdaq futures were added by 1.6 % in the post-excessive trade.

background of the legal dispute

The Lawn In April by the libertarian lawyer group Liberty Justice Center was submitted And represented the wine dealer Vos Selections and four other small companies that claimed to have been significantly damaged by the tariffs. The committee came to a unanimous judgment and published a statement on the lawsuit of VOS and one of twelve democratic states that was raised against the Trump tariffs.

"We won - the state of Oregon and the plaintiffs have also won," said Ilya Somin, legal professor at the Scalia Law School of George Mason University and the plaintiffs, immediately after the judgment. "The judgment notes that the entire system of the day of liberation and other IEEPA-Zölle is illegally prohibited and prohibited by a permanent ban."

Declaration of a national economic emergency

On April 2, Trump announced his “mutual” tariffs and introduced significant taxes on imports from some of the closest traded America-although he took a 90-day break on April 9. However, the "universal" 10%tariffs on most of the goods that come to the USA remained.

Trump introduced these tariffs without the consent of the congress by claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the President the authority to react to unusual and extraordinary threats.

Legal opinion of the plaintiffs

However, the plaintiffs claimed that the Trump administration had not fulfilled the criteria for an emergency. It was also brought forward that the IEEPA does not grant the president's authority to introduce tariffs. Even if this were interpreted in this way, this would be "an unconstitutional delegation of the power of the congress for the introduction of tariffs," said an explanation.

The court approved in his judgment that Trump had no authority to proclaim a national emergency to impose these tariffs. "Ieepa does not authorize any global, retrieval or trade customs regulations," said the judges in their decision on Wednesday. "The worldwide and retrieving customs regulations exceed every authority granted to the president to regulate the import by tariff.

episodes for small companies

The decision could small companies all over America that have suffered many costs from the tariff. "This could-emphasized with this choice of words-be an important turning point in politics if it has existed for both the economy and the silent majority in the congress, which does not support the current trade policy," Joe Brusuelas, chief economist from RSM US, wrote in an email to CNN Business.

"In particular, this would offer enormous relief for small and medium -sized companies that have neither margins nor the financial depth in order to bear the tariffs in the long term."

further course of the procedure

The lawyers of the Ministry of Justice argued that the tariffs were a political question - which means that courts could not decide. But the plaintiffs pointed out that the IEEPA had not mentioned tariffs. "If the triggering of the greatest trade war has been based on legislation since the great depression, which does not even mentions to be used, is not more legislative, then I don't know what that is then," said Somin in April.

Regardless of this, twelve Democratic States also sued the government due to the "illegal Introduction ”of tax increases on Americans through the tariffs. "We have strained this case because the constitution does not admit any president of unlimited power to change the economy. This judgment confirms that our laws are important and that trading decisions cannot be made according to the will of the president," said the Attorney General of Oregon, Dan Rayfield, in a opinion on Wednesday.

lawyers warned that the government could possibly ask for a higher court to suspend the implementation of the ban while becoming appeal. The next higher court is the Federal Court of Justice, but the case could also go directly to the Supreme Court.

The US court for international trade is a federal court in Manhattan that deals with disputes over customs and international trade laws.

This story continues to develop and is updated.

The CNN journalists Matt Egan and Alicia Wallace contributed to this report.