By coinnews 
00:00 Speaker A
President Trump’s tariff blocked by a US court which declared them illegal and throws his tariff strategy into turmoil. The ruling could eliminate new tariffs on imports from China, Canada, Mexico, and other countries, but the Trump administration has said it will appeal the ruling. Here to break down what you need to know is Yahoo Finance legal correspondent, Alexis Keenan. Alexis, this all started with the invocation of the international emergency economic powers act here. Where do things stand now?
00:44 Speaker B
Yeah.
00:45 Speaker B
So, this is a tremendous ruling by this court coming down late last night, and what the three-judge panel in Manhattan said at the International Trade Court is that the law that Trump relied on that you just referenced there, the IEPA, that’s the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, it’s a 1977 law, that it does not support the type of, what the court called, unbounded tariffs that come in President Trump’s executive orders since he took office in January. They said that type of authority, that must come from Congress. Now, this law is meant to address unusual and extraordinary threats to national security that is after the president would declare a national emergency, but the court here saying, no, the type of emergencies that the Trump administration has put forward are not good enough to satisfy this law. And those, specifically, if you remember, were trade deficits, the flow of illegal drugs and the flow of illegal immigration. Now, uh, in a response, the White House has said, uh, made this kind of balance of power statement, uh, that’s what this case is about, then the the White House saying, these deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base, facts that the court did not dispute. It is not for unelected judges, they say, to decide how to properly address a national emergency. So, the Trump administration there saying that that is the job of the executive and that’s much of what this case was disputing here. Now, let’s briefly take a look at the tariffs that are impacted. It’s most of the tariffs that have been applied since January, so that 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the US, also the 25% tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico, except for some steel and aluminum tariffs that aren’t applying here. Uh, also, uh, those were under a pause as well. So, uh, in addition, the 30% tariff that was also pending against China, also on a pause there, as well as these reciprocal tariffs that build on top of those 10% baseline tariffs. The Trump administration has already immediately filed a notice of appeal. They have about 30 days to file, uh, if they want to do that. And where this case would go next is the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They’re the ones who would take up this matter from here.
04:54 Speaker A
Let’s talk about that then, Alexis, because two things stick out to me reading through the document this morning. They basically give President Trump the playbook here. They talk about section 122 potentially being a better fit than IEPA. So, could he utilize that to get around any pushback from those appellate courts from the Supreme Court on his tariffs?
05:28 Speaker B
Right.
05:29 Speaker B
That’s what we would expect. Now, in the oral arguments for this case, there were a lot of questions from the judicial panel saying, well, where do we draw the line exactly? How far does IEPA extend? Give us some parameters, lawyers, who are arguing on behalf of your clients, tell us where to go. Now, in this decision, that doesn’t exist, right? There’s not a hard line. It’s more of the the judges saying, well, whatever Trump’s administration did to justify, there’s not a tight enough nexus between addressing the national security and the tariffs, that they are not a perfect fit. So, yes, we would expect to see those types of arguments come through. Another really interesting aspect that I I saw in a Politico story this morning is that the idea that the government may have to pay back tariffs to countries where tariffs have already been assessed, so that could come at a big expense as well.
06:51 Speaker A
Always so much to cover. I also thought it was interesting, the judges behind this, two, very mixed when it comes to political background, which is interesting given this, absolutely. Really important context. Alexis, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
07:06 Speaker B
Yes, but yet a unanimous decision here.