Politics
White House takes tariffs fight to US Supreme Court
- Court says Trump exceeded powers in enacting tariffs.
- Trump cites longstanding US trade deficit as emergency.
- Tariffs remain in effect during appeal to Supreme Court.
Donald Trump’s administration asked the US Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a bid to preserve his sweeping tariffs pursued under a 1977 law meant for emergencies, after a lower court invalidated most of the levies central to the Republican president’s economic and trade agenda.
The Justice Department appealed an August 29 ruling by a federal appeals court that the president overstepped his authority in invoking the law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, undercutting a major Trump priority in his second term.
The tariffs currently remain in effect as the appeals court paused its order to give the administration time to seek Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to decide by September 10 whether it would hear the case. The Justice Department also proposed an accelerated timetable for resolving the litigation, with oral arguments in the first week of November, just a month after the start of the court’s 2025-2026 term.
Lawyers for small businesses challenging the tariffs are not opposing the government’s request for a Supreme Court hearing. One of the attorneys, Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement they were confident they would prevail.
“We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,” Schwab said.
The levies are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January that has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and fueled global economic uncertainty.
Trump has made tariffs a pillar of US foreign policy, using them to exert political pressure and renegotiate trade deals and extract concessions from countries that export goods to the United States.
The litigation concerns Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose what Trump calls “reciprocal” tariffs to address trade deficits in April, as well as separate tariffs announced in February as economic leverage on China, Canada and Mexico to curb the trafficking of fentanyl and illicit drugs into the US.
IEEPA gives the president power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” amid a national emergency and had historically been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets. Prior to Trump, the law had never been used to impose tariffs.
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.
The appeals court ruling stems from two challenges, one brought by five small businesses that import goods, including a New York wine and spirits importer and a Pennsylvania-based sport fishing retailer. The other was filed by 12 US states — Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont — most of them governed by Democrats.
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 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, agreed, ruling that the president’s power to regulate imports under the law does not include the power to impose tariffs.
“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 appeals court said in its 7-4 decision.
The appeals court also said that the administration’s expansive view of IEEPA violates the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance to be clearly authorised by Congress.
The New York-based US Court of International Trade, which has jurisdiction over customs and trade disputes, previously ruled against Trump’s tariff policies on May 28.
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.
The administration’s appeal comes as a legal fight over the independence of the Federal Reserve also seems bound for the Supreme Court, setting up a potential legal showdown over Trump’s entire economic policy in the months ahead.
US President Donald Trump said on Monday he had told Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that there should be no war with Pakistan, stressing that he had helped avert several conflicts through diplomacy and trade pressure.
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office during Diwali celebrations, Trump extended his “warmest wishes to the people of India” and said he had “just spoken to your Prime Minister today.” He described the conversation as “great” and said, “We talked about trade… He’s very interested in that.”
Trump added that they also discussed avoiding conflict, saying, “Although we did talk a little while ago about let’s have no wars with Pakistan.” He noted the role of commerce in easing tensions: “The fact that trade was involved, I was able to talk about that.”
The US president emphasised the outcome, saying, “And we have no war with Pakistan and India. That was a very, very good thing.” He concluded by praising Modi personally: “He’s a great person, and he’s become a great friend of mine over the years.”
The US president claimed he had prevented eight wars so far through what he described as “deals and trade,” including one between Pakistan and India.
“During the Pakistan-India conflict, seven planes were shot down,” Trump said. “I called both countries and told them that if they went to war, the United States would stop trading with them. Within 24 hours, they called back and said they didn’t want to fight.”
Trump has previously taken credit on several occasions for helping defuse tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, who have fought three wars since independence and remain at odds over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday brushed off criticism over the demolition of part of the White House to build a new ballroom, saying the sound of the construction work was “music to my ears.”
Democrats have accused the Republican president of failing to respect the presidential mansion, after pictures emerged of excavators tearing off the facade of the East Wing of the building.
As AFP journalists observed the demolition continue on Tuesday, Democrats also criticised him for pushing ahead with a $ 250 million plan. At the same time, Americans face a government shutdown and a high cost of living.
But the 79-year-old property mogul insisted that the work needed to be done, and said that taxpayers would not pay for any of it.
The US president has said that he is partly funding work on the giant ballroom, while private and corporate donors will cover the rest.
Last week, Trump hosted a glitzy dinner for donors with guests including several top US tech firms, but the White House has not released a list yet or given any figures.
The White House rejected what it called “pearl-clutching” from critics.
“In the latest instance of manufactured outrage, unhinged leftists and their Fake News allies are clutching their pearls over President Donald J. Trump’s visionary addition of a grand, privately funded ballroom to the White House,” it said in a statement.
It called the ballroom a “bold, necessary addition that echoes the storied history of improvements and renovations from commanders-in-chief to keep the executive residence as a beacon of American excellence.”
The White House also pointed out a series of works done by previous presidents — including what it said was President Barack Obama upgrading the tennis court into a full basketball court.
Trump has launched a major makeover of the White House in his second term, including paving over the Rose Garden where he hosted the Republican senators.
Democrats lashed out at Trump over the demolition work, comparing it to his own radical efforts to reshape the federal government and target his political opponents.
“The demolition of the East Wing feels very symbolic of what Trump is doing to our democracy,” Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono said on X. “He’ll lie about protecting it, then destroy it right in front of your face.”
Senior Senator Elizabeth Warren said that while Americans faced a “skyrocketing” cost of living, Donald Trump can’t hear you over the sound of bulldozers demolishing a wing of the White House to build a new grand ballroom.”
- Move follows Taliban FM Muttaqi’s recent visit to New Delhi.
- Jaishankar earlier announced to restore full diplomatic status.
- New Delhi aims to expand bilateral engagement, cooperation.
India has “reopened” its embassy in the Afghan capital Kabul after four years, as diplomatic relations between both countries saw a significant expansion following Afghan Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi’s recent visit to New Delhi.
This development came after Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar announced earlier this month that New Delhi would reopen its embassy in Kabul.
India had closed its embassy in Kabul after the Taliban seized power following the withdrawal of US-led Nato forces in 2021, but opened a small mission a year later to facilitate trade, medical support, and humanitarian aid.
In a statement, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said: “In keeping with the decision announced during the recent visit of the Afghan Foreign Minister to India, the government is restoring the status of the Technical Mission of India in Kabul to that of Embassy of India in Afghanistan with immediate effect.”
“This decision underscores India’s resolve to deepen its bilateral engagement with the Afghan side in all spheres of mutual interest.”
“The Embassy of India in Kabul will further augment India’s contribution to Afghanistan’s comprehensive development, humanitarian assistance, and capacity-building initiatives, in keeping with the priorities and aspirations of Afghan society,” it concluded.
About a dozen countries, including Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran, and Turkiye, have embassies operating in Kabul, although Russia is the only country to have formally recognised the Taliban regime.
Muttaqi had paid a six-day visit to India to boost ties with New Delhi earlier this month.
Analysts said the trip highlights the Taliban regime’s efforts to expand engagement with regional powers in a quest for economic relations and eventual diplomatic recognition.
India and Afghanistan have historically had friendly ties, but New Delhi does not recognise the Taliban regime.
According to the Western diplomats, the Taliban administration’s path to recognition is being stalled by its curbs on women.
Howard, top-20 senior in ’26, commits to Duke
Szoboszlai: Lots of Liverpool meetings after loss
Brooklyn Beckham cuts ties with Romeo and Cruz amid ongoing family feud?
-
Tech1 week agoUK police to upgrade illicit asset recovery system | Computer Weekly
-
Tech5 days agoWhy the F5 Hack Created an ‘Imminent Threat’ for Thousands of Networks
-
Tech7 days agoWhat Is Google One, and Should You Subscribe?
-
Tech3 days agoHow to Protect Yourself Against Getting Locked Out of Your Cloud Accounts
-
Tech1 week agoMassive UK dieselgate lawsuit reaches court
-
Fashion1 week agoUS brand Ralph Lauren reports 2025 sustainability progress
-
Tech1 week agoWhen does it pay for housing associations to replace water and sewage pipes?
-
Business6 days agoBaroness Mone-linked PPE firm misses deadline to pay £122m