Politics
Trump’s Tariffs Deemed Unlawful by Divided Appeals Court

On Friday, a divided U.S. appeals court ruled that the majority of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump are illegal, delivering a major setback to one of his key international economic policy tools. The decision challenges Trump’s use of these levies to influence global trade relations and could have wide-ranging effects on U.S. trade agreements, affected industries, and supply chains. Legal experts note that the ruling may also set an important precedent for how future administrations implement tariffs and other trade measures.
The court allowed the tariffs to remain in place through October 14 to give the Trump administration a chance to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court.
The decision comes as a legal fight over the independence of the Federal Reserve also seems bound for the Supreme Court, setting up an unprecedented legal showdown this year over Trump’s entire economic policy.
Trump has made tariffs a pillar of US foreign policy in his second term, using them to exert political pressure and renegotiate trade deals with countries that export goods to the United States.
The tariffs have given the Trump administration leverage to extract economic concessions from trading partners but have also increased volatility in financial markets.
Trump lamented the decision by what he called a “highly partisan” court, posting on Truth Social: “If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country”.
He nonetheless predicted a reversal, saying he expected tariffs to benefit the country “with the help of the Supreme Court”.
The 7-4 decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, addressed the legality of what Trump calls “reciprocal” tariffs imposed as part of his trade war in April, as well as a separate set of tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.
Democratic presidents appointed six judges in the majority and two judges who dissented, while Republican presidents appointed one judge in the majority and two dissenters.
The court’s decision does not impact tariffs issued under other legal authority, such as Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.
‘UNUSUAL AND EXTRAORDINARY’
Trump justified both sets of tariffs – as well as more recent levies – under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
IEEPA gives the president the power to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies.
“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax,” the court said.
“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”
The 1977 law had historically been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets.
Trump, the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, says the measures were justified given trade imbalances, declining US manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs.
Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorise a president to “regulate” imports or block them completely.
Trump declared a national emergency in April over the fact that the US imports more than it exports, as the nation has done for decades.
Trump said the persistent trade deficit was undermining US manufacturing capability and military readiness.
Trump said the February tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders, an assertion the countries have denied.
MORE UNCERTAINTY
William Reinsch, a former senior Commerce Department official now with the Centre on Strategic and International Studies, said the Trump administration had been bracing for this ruling.
“It’s common knowledge the administration has been anticipating this outcome and is preparing a Plan B, presumably to keep the tariffs in place via other statutes.”
There was little reaction to the ruling in after-hours stock trading.
“The last thing the market or corporate America needs is more uncertainty on trade,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth.
Trump is also locked in a legal battle to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, potentially ending the central bank’s independence.
“I think it puts Trump’s entire economic agenda on a potential collision course with the Supreme Court. It’s unlike anything we’ve seen ever,” said Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council.
The 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings favouring Trump’s second term agenda, but has also, in recent years, been hostile to expansive interpretations of old statutes to provide presidents newly-found powers.
The appeals court ruling stems from two cases, one brought by five small US businesses and the other by 12 Democratic-led US states, which argued that IEEPA does not authorise tariffs.
The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to impose taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be both explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits.
The New York-based US Court of International Trade ruled against Trump’s tariff policies on May 28, saying the president had exceeded his authority when he imposed both sets of challenged tariffs.
The three-judge panel included a judge who was appointed by Trump in his first term.
Another court in Washington ruled that IEEPA does not authorise Trump’s tariffs, and the government has appealed that decision as well.
At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.
Politics
Electricity outage hits San Francisco, thousands without power

A huge electricity outage hit San Francisco on Saturday, leaving 130,000 residents without power for several hours at its peak, with the city’s main provider saying all services would return overnight.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company said in a statement on X that power had been restored to about 90,000 households by 9pm Saturday (0500 Sunday GMT), “with the remaining 40,000 customers expected to be restored overnight.”
Large parts of the West Coast tech hub, which has a population of more than 800,000 people, were plunged into darkness, with disruptions to public transport and many traffic lights not working on a busy Christmas shopping weekend before power began to be restored.
“I know this was a rough day,” San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said in a video posted on X from the city´s emergency operations centre.
“That is progress (on restoration of power)… but for those of you who do not have power, we want to make sure you stay safe, check on your neighbours,” he said.
Lurie said police, fire department and other city officials had been sent out and asked residents to stay home if possible.
Many traffic signals were out, leaving traffic police to manage intersections and the self-driving ride-hailing service Waymo had paused operation of its vehicles, he said.
A fire at a substation had caused the blackout, Lurie said.
Parts of the city were blanketed in fog and many businesses were forced to close for the day at the height of the holiday shopping period, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported, leaving normally bustling commercial areas quiet.
The abrupt fall in shoppers just days before Christmas was “devastating” for business, a manager of Black & Gold home goods store, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Politics
US intercepts oil tanker off Venezuelan coast, Reports

The United States has intercepted an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in international waters, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed Saturday, a move that comes just days after US President Donald Trump announced a “blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela.
It’s the second time in recent weeks that the United States has gone after a tanker near Venezuela amid a large U.S. military build-up in the region.
Noem confirmed the Coast Guard intercepted a tanker that was last docked in Venezuela.
“The United States will continue to pursue the illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region,” she said in a statement posted to social media. “We will find you, and we will stop you.”
Three US officials earlier Saturday had told Reuters that the vessel had been intercepted.
The Coast Guard and Pentagon referred questions to the White House. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the tanker contained sanctioned oil.
“It was a falsely flagged vessel operating as part of the Venezuelan shadow fleet to traffic stolen oil and fund the narcoterrorist Maduro regime,” she wrote on X.
Venezuela’s oil ministry and state oil company PDVSA did not immediately reply to requests for comment. The Venezuelan government called the tanker interception a “serious act of international piracy.”
Venezuela “denounces and rejects the theft and hijacking of a new private vessel transporting oil, as well as the forced disappearance of its crew, committed by military personnel of the United States of America in international waters,” the statement said.
Caracas said the actions will be reported to the United Nations Security Council, other multilateral organizations and governments.
British maritime risk management company Vanguard said the vessel was believed to be the Panama-flagged Centuries, which was intercepted east of Barbados in the Caribbean Sea.
Jeremy Paner, a partner at Washington, D.C., law firm Hughes Hubbard and a former OFAC investigator, said the vessel has not been sanctioned by the US.
An October police raid in northern Rio de Janeiro became the deadliest in Brazil’s history, after leaving more than 120 people dead.
“The seizure of a vessel that is not sanctioned by the US marks a further increase in Trump’s pressure on Venezuela,” Paner said. “It also runs counter to Trump’s statement that the U.S. would impose a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers.”
Politics
Gunmen kill 9, wound 10 in South Africa bar attack

- Manhunt for the attackers has been launched, say police.
- Attackers in 2 vehicles randomly opened fire while fleeing scene.
- Dead included a driver from online car-hailing service.
JOHANNESBURG: Nine people were killed when unknown gunmen opened fire at a bar outside Johannesburg early Sunday, police said, in the second such shooting in South Africa this month.
Ten more were wounded when around a dozen men attacked the tavern at Bekkersdal, in a gold mining area around 40 kilometres (25 miles) southwest of the city, just before 1:00 am (2300 GMT).
Police initially said 10 people were killed but later revised the toll downwards.
The attackers in two vehicles “opened fire at tavern patrons and continued to shoot randomly as they fled the scene,” a police statement said.
The dead included a driver from an online car-hailing service who had been outside the bar, provincial police commissioner Major General Fred Kekana told SABC television.
A manhunt for the attackers had been launched, police said.
South Africa, the continent’s most industrialised nation, is grappling with entrenched crime and corruption driven by organised networks.
Shootings are common and often fuelled by gang violence and competition between informal businesses, contributing to one of the highest murder rates in the world.
On December 6, gunmen stormed a hostel at Saulsville township near the capital Pretoria, killing a dozen people including a three-year-old child.
Police said that shooting was at a site that was illegally selling alcohol.
Many South Africans own licensed firearms for personal protection but there are many more illegal guns in circulation despite relatively strict ownership laws.
An average of 63 people were killed each day between April and September, according to police data.
Most deaths stemmed from arguments, with robberies and gang violence also driving the toll.
In one of the deadliest recent incidents, 18 relatives were shot dead at a rural homestead in the country’s Eastern Cape province in September 2024.
-
Business1 week agoHitting The ‘High Notes’ In Ties: Nepal Set To Lift Ban On Indian Bills Above ₹100
-
Business7 days agoStudying Abroad Is Costly, But Not Impossible: Experts On Smarter Financial Planning
-
Business7 days agoKSE-100 index gains 876 points amid cut in policy rate | The Express Tribune
-
Sports6 days agoJets defensive lineman rips NFL officials after ejection vs Jaguars
-
Tech1 week agoFor the First Time, AI Analyzes Language as Well as a Human Expert
-
Entertainment6 days agoPrince Harry, Meghan Markle’s 2025 Christmas card: A shift in strategy
-
Business4 days agoBP names new boss as current CEO leaves after less than two years
-
Tech4 days agoT-Mobile Business Internet and Phone Deals
