{"id":200594,"date":"2025-09-04T21:47:11","date_gmt":"2025-09-04T21:47:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/200594\/"},"modified":"2025-09-04T21:47:11","modified_gmt":"2025-09-04T21:47:11","slug":"trump-sees-catastrophe-unless-justices-say-his-tariffs-are-legal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/200594\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump sees ‘catastrophe’ unless justices say his tariffs are legal"},"content":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 President Donald Trump<\/a> is seeking a swift and definitive decision on tariffs<\/a> from the Supreme Court<\/a> that he helped shape, saying the country would be on \u201cthe brink of economic catastrophe\u201d without the import taxes he has imposed on U.S. rivals and allies alike.<\/p>\n

The administration used near-apocalyptic terms<\/a> that are highly unusual in Supreme Court filings as it asked the justices late Wednesday to intervene and reverse<\/a> an appeals court ruling<\/a> that found most of Trump\u2019s tariffs are an illegal use of an emergency powers law<\/a>. The tariffs remain in place, for now.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington on March 28, 2017. (AP Photo\/J. Scott Applewhite, File)<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington on March 28, 2017. (AP Photo\/J. Scott Applewhite, File)<\/p>\n

Read More<\/p>\n

The case comes to a court that has so far been reluctant to check Trump\u2019s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices\u2019 own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump\u2019s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the Constitution endows with the power over tariffs. Three of the justices on conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.<\/p>\n

The tariffs and their erratic rollout have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies, and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth. <\/p>\n

But the Republican president has also used the trade penalties to pressure the European Union, Japan and others into accepting new deals. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier. <\/p>\n

Raising the stakes even higher, Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to decide in a week\u2019s time whether to hear the case and hold arguments the first week of November. That is far faster than the pace of the typical Supreme Court case.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe President and his Cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe,\u201d Sauer wrote.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"President<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump speaks about the relocation of U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo\/Mark Schiefelbein)<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump speaks about the relocation of U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo\/Mark Schiefelbein)<\/p>\n

Read More<\/p>\n

He wrote that it is not just trade that is at issue, but also the nation\u2019s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia\u2019s war against Ukraine.<\/p>\n

The tariffs will almost certainly remain in effect until a final ruling from the Supreme Court. But the Republican administration nevertheless called on the high court to intervene quickly and reverse the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThat decision casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations that the President has been pursuing through tariffs over the past five months, jeopardizing both already negotiated framework deals and ongoing negotiations,\u201d Sauer wrote. \u201cThe stakes in this case could not be higher.\u201d<\/p>\n

The filing cites not only Trump but also the secretaries of the departments of Treasury, Commerce and State in support of the urgent need for the justices to step in. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe recent decision by the Federal Circuit is already adversely affecting ongoing negotiations,\u201d Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote.<\/p>\n

The stakes are also high for small businesses battered by tariffs and uncertainty, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The businesses have twice prevailed, once at a federal court focused on trade and again with the appeals court\u2019s 7-4 ruling. Their lawsuit is one of several challenging the tariffs.<\/p>\n

Most judges on the Federal Circuit found that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not allow Trump to usurp congressional power to set tariffs. The dissenters, though, said the gives the president the power to regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations.<\/p>\n

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April<\/a> and the ones from February<\/a> on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.<\/p>\n

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over the decades, lawmakers have ceded authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.<\/p>\n

Some Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, were not covered by the appeals court ruling. It also does not include tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by Democratic President Joe Biden.<\/p>\n

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.<\/p>\n

The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it\u2019s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.<\/p>\n

The tariffs are expected to reduce deficits by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, the administration said, citing analyses by the Congressional Budget Office.<\/p>\n

In an analysis from June, the CBO also found that the import taxes would slow growth and increase price pressures. The June analysis estimated that inflation would be 0.4% higher annually in 2025 and 2026 than it otherwise would be, hurting the purchasing power of U.S. consumers and businesses.<\/p>\n

Trump has since revised and changed his tariff structure, making some of the estimates speculative.<\/p>\n

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned in an August speech that tariffs are already pushing up the prices of some goods, but \u201cthere is significant uncertainty about where all of these polices will eventually settle and what their lasting effects on the economy will be.\u201d<\/p>\n

___<\/p>\n

Associated Press writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 President Donald Trump is seeking a swift and definitive decision on tariffs from the Supreme…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":200595,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[64,74,356,84,69,12042,57,2055,86,13790,142,82,50,80,18244,16618,618,67,132,68,93,107],"class_list":{"0":"post-200594","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-business","10":"tag-china","11":"tag-courts","12":"tag-district-of-columbia","13":"tag-donald-trump","14":"tag-economic-policy","15":"tag-general-news","16":"tag-government-and-politics","17":"tag-government-policy","18":"tag-international-trade","19":"tag-jerome-powell","20":"tag-joe-biden","21":"tag-news","22":"tag-politics","23":"tag-scott-bessent","24":"tag-tariffs-and-global-trade","25":"tag-taxes","26":"tag-united-states","27":"tag-unitedstates","28":"tag-us","29":"tag-washington-news","30":"tag-world-news"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115148229442540668","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200594\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/200595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}