The American Court decides that many of the rates imposed by Trump are illegal

The rates must remain in force until mid -October, a deadline for the government that can appeal to the Supreme Court, which must happen. Taxes against Brazil, Canada and China can be affected.

A Court of Appeal of the United States established on Friday (08/08/29) that most of the rates imposed by President Donald Trump are illegal, creating potential legal impasses that can directly influence the republican’s foreign policy agenda.

The decision of the Court can affect the rates imposed on different countries, such as Brazil, China, Mexico and Canada.

The decision will only come into force on October 14, giving the possibility that the Trump government will resort to the Supreme Court, which will probably happen.

But it does not apply to some types of rates, such as those in steel and foreign aluminum, which have been imposed on a different legal base.

With a score from 7 to 4, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit rejected the Trump topic that the rates were allowed pursuant to emergency laws for the external economy.

On his social network, Trump criticized the court: “If maintained, this decision will literally destroy the United States of America”.

“Today, a Highly Appeal Court of the Party erroneously said that our rates should be withdrawn, but they know that the United States of America will in the end,” he wrote.

“If these rates were suspended, it would be a total disaster for the country. It would make us financially weak and we must be strong.”

Previously, Trump has justified rates based on the international law on economic emergency powers, which gives the President the power to act against “unusual and extraordinary” threats “.

Trump has declared a national state of emergency in trade, claiming that a commercial imbalance is harmful to the national security of the United States.

But the Court of Appeal believed that imposing rates was not part of the power of the president, but of the congress.

In the 127 -page decision, the Court said that the law “does not mention the rates (or none of its synonyms) nor has procedural protections that contain clear limits on the power of the president to impose rates”.

According to the document, when the congress approved the law in 1977, it is unlikely that legislators “granted the unlimited president to impose rates”.

“Every time the congress intends to delegate the authority to impose rates, it does so explicitly, both to use unequivocal terms such as rates and imposed, or through a general structure that clarifies that the congress refers to the tariffs”, wrote the judges.

The decision is a response to two processes, guided by small businesses and a coalition of American states.

The causes were opened after Trump’s executive orders, which imposed a 10% rate to all countries, as well as rates directed to dozens of countries.

Trump declared that moment as the “liberation day” of the United States of unjust commercial policies.

Before the decision, the lawyers of the White House claimed that the rates would lead to a financial collapse similar to that of 1929, when a break from the stock exchange led to the great depression.

“The president believes that our country would not be able to pay the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to paying, which could lead to financial ruin,” they wrote in a letter.

Experts say that the decision can force the country to pay billions of taxes to the countries that have already signed agreements with the United States to minimize rates.

In May, the International Commercial Court based in New York said that the rates were illegal, but suspended the decision to dedicate time.

It is almost certain that the question will reach the Supreme Court of the United States, which in recent years has been cautious with the presidents who have tried to implement global policies not directly authorized by the congress.

Under the government of Joe Biden, the Court limited democratic policies that used the existing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions through the power plants and forgive the debts of the student loan of the students.

The judges of the Supreme Court, if they agree to analyze the case, can evaluate whether the Trump tariff agenda is another example of excess presidency or if it is sufficiently based on the law and the presidential authority.

Although the Court of Appeal has defeated the president, the White House can comfort itself that only three of the 11 judges of the court have been appointed by the Republicans.

Of a total of 9 members, the Supreme Court of the United States in turn has six Republican candidates, three of which are chosen by Trump himself.

Source: Terra

Rose

Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.