| |
25 States Sue Over Trump's New Tariffs 08/04 06:16
Twenty-five states sued the Trump administration Monday over its latest
tariffs, calling them a pretext for replacing import taxes the Supreme Court
struck down in February.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twenty-five states sued the Trump administration Monday
over its latest tariffs, calling them a pretext for replacing import taxes the
Supreme Court struck down in February.
The United States last month imposed double-digit tariffs on 59 countries
and the European Union, charging that they had not done enough to crack down on
imports produced by forced labor. The new tariffs took effect just as the clock
ran out on temporary tariffs President Donald Trump had turned to after the
Supreme Court defeat.
"After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying
to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of
tariffs," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Joining New York in the lawsuit announced Monday are Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington and
Wisconsin.
Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive American manufacturing, last
year overturned decades of U.S. policy that favored lower tariffs and
ever-freer trade. Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers
Act, or IEEPA, he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every
country, saying America's longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national
emergency.
But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorize tariffs. The
decision forced the administration to send refunds to importers who'd paid the
tariffs. Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10%
worldwide tariffs. But they expired at midnight July 24.
Now he's tapping more durable tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of
1974, which permits the president to impose import taxes and other sanctions
against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices. Trump used Section
301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term, and they survived court
challenges.
The administration invoked Section 301 to impose the forced-labor tariffs,
which range from 10% to 12.5% and hit countries that provide 99% of American
imports.
"The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination
of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce," White
House spokesman Kush Desai said. "A foreign country's failure to impose and
effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with
forced labor is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American
workers, and must be addressed. Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally
durable tool since the President's first term, and they remain so now."
The states' lawsuit follows two other lawsuits filed in The Court of
International Trade in July by small businesses that also challenged the 301
tariffs.
Both of those lawsuits argue that the government didn't adequately establish
its case against each specific economy or spell how the tariffs will eliminate
the specified practice they are being levied for, as required by Section 301.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School's
Center for International Law, said the challenges stem from the fact that the
301 tariffs are the third time the administration has tried to impose similar
worldwide tariffs under different statutes, and their "nearly copy-pasted"
nature could pose a challenge to defend in court.
However, he said while the statutes that the administration implemented
tariffs under previously were novelties and hadn't been used before for that
purpose, Section 301 has been used before.
During Trump 's first term, he cited Section 301 to impose tariffs on
Chinese imports, which survived legal challenges.
"Presidents have used it for decades, and Congress built it with real
guardrails: investigation, consultation, a public record," Appleton said. "The
government's defense won't be 'I had no power to do this.' It will be, 'I
stayed inside the lines Congress drew.' That is a real fight, not a formality,
and it is the one that will decide this case."
Your local weather forecast from DTN can be sent to your email every morning free through DTN Snapshot.
|
|
