A Federal Court of Appeals has temporarily restored the tariffs of US President Donald Trump a day after a commercial court ruled that he exceeded the authorities granted to the President.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington temporarily blocked the decision of the lower court on Thursday, but did not provide reasoning for the decision, only gave the plaintiffs until they respond on June 5.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency motion of the Trump administration arguing that a high is “critical for the national security of the country.”
The White House has applauded the move.
“It can be, even if we lose cases of rates, we will find another way,” said commercial advisor Peter Navarro.
Wednesday's surprise ruling by the United States International Trade Court had threatened to stop or delay Trump's “Liberation Day” tariffs in most of the United States commercial partners, as well as import taxes on goods in Canada, Mexico and China related to their accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl to the United States.
The International Trade Court said that tariffs issued under the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers (IEEPA), which is generally used to address national emergency issues instead of addressing national debt, exaltations were considered.
Experts said that the IEEEPA, which was approved in 1977, has a limited reach and is directed to specific countries, “terrorist organizations” designated by the United States or a gang activity linked to specific cases. The United States, for example, used the law to confiscate the property belonging to the Iran Government during the hostage crisis in 1979 and the ownership of drug traffickers in Colombia in 1995.
“The International Law of Emergency Economic Powers of 1977 says nothing about rates,” said Bruce Fain, former attached attorney general of the United States under Ronald Reagan, Al Jazeera.
Fein added that there is a statute, the Commercial Expansion Law of 1962, which allows tariffs in case of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the Secretary of Commerce and can only be imposed by product by product.
'Product by product'
Despite the respite of the Court of Appeals, Wednesday's decision has been seen as a blow to the economic agenda of the administration that has so far led to the decrease in consumer confidence and the United States lost their maximum credit rating.
Experts believe that, ultimately, tariffs will not last.
Publishing in X, previously known as Twitter, on Thursday, lawyer Peter Harrell, member of the Carnegie Dotment for International Peace, wrote that, if the decision of the Commercial Court “is confirmed, the importers should eventually be able to obtain a reimbursement of [IEEPA] tariffs paid to date. But the government will probably seek to pay reimbursements until appeals are exhausted. “
“The power to decide the level of tariffs resides with Congress. IEEPA does not even mention elevation rates. And in reality it was approved to reduce the president's authority. Now the president is using it to rewrite the tariff schedule for everyone,” Greg Schaffer, professor of international law at the Georgetown Law Faculty, told Al Jazera.
The United States Commercial Court did not intervene in rates established by other laws, such as the Commercial Expansion Law: the law used to justify tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars.
There are additional objectives for similar narrow rates, such as China's pharmaceutical products. In April, the White House announced that the United States Department of Commerce launched an investigation to see if the dependency of the United States in China for active ingredients in key medications raised a national security threat, which guarantees tariffs.
“This is not an issue of whether the president can impose tariffs,” said Fein, former associated general attachment. “It can under the law of 1962 after there is a study and after demonstrating that it is not arbitrary and capricious and that it is a product by product, not an approach from country to country.”
“If you don't like that, you can ask Congress to modify the statute.”
