Latest News

US Trade Court weighs the legality of Trump’s 10% global tariff

A U.S. Trade?court considered Friday the legality of President Donald Trump's 10% global import -tax, which many states and small business claim circumvents a U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidating most of his previous tariffs.

Two small businesses and a group of 24 mostly Democratic-led states sued the Trump Administration to stop the new tariffs that went into effect February 24, 2019.

The hearing will be conducted by a panel of three judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Oregon's attorney Brian Marshall said that the judges should block the tariffs of 10% rather than allow them to expire according to the usual 150-day time frame, in order to prevent?Trump invoking various laws to keep the tariffs indefinitely.

Marshall stated that "we have a series of tariffs which are always in place, this is a problem."

Marshall said that the tariffs are based on an archaic law meant to protect?U.S. Dollar from sudden depreciation during the 1970s when dollars were exchangeable for gold held at Fort Knox.

He claimed that the authority was intended to "resolve" significant "balance of payments deficits," but Trump could not repurpose it in order to address routine trade imbalances.

In his second term Trump made tariffs "a central pillar" of his foreign policies, and claimed sweeping authority to impose tariffs without the input of Congress.

The administration said that global tariffs were a legal and proper response to the persistent trade deficit that is caused by the U.S. importing more goods than they export.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai stated that "President Trump uses the executive powers given to him by Congress in a lawful manner to address our nation's balance-of-payments crisis."

Trump imposed new tariffs in accordance with Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974. This section authorizes import duties of up 15% for a maximum of 150 days during "large and severe United States balance of payments deficits" or prevent an imminent depreciation of dollars.

Small businesses and the states argue that the Trade Act's authority to impose tariffs is only meant to deal with short-term monetary crises, while routine trade deficits don't match the economic definition for "balance of payments deficits."

Trump?announced new tariffs on the 20th of February, the same day that the Supreme Court delivered a stinging blow to him when it struck down a large swath tariffs he imposed under International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court ruled that the IEEPA did not grant him the 'power he claimed.

Before Trump, no U.S. President had?used Section 122 or the IEEPA to impose tariffs. These two lawsuits are not challenging other Trump tariffs imposed under traditional legal authority such as the recent tariffs on imports of steel, aluminum, and copper. Dietrich Knauth is the reporter; Noeleen Walder and Lisa Shumaker are the editors. Franklin Paul, David Gregorio, and Noeleen Walder are responsible for editing.

(source: Reuters)