Second federal court rules against Trump’s signature tariffs, intensifying legal battle

Second federal court rules against Trump’s signature tariffs, intensifying legal battle

Entertainment



A second federal judge ruled against President Donald Trump's full use of emergency definitions, and the legal and political battle intensified on one of the distinguished economic policies of the administration.

The American boycott judge, Rodolph Contraras, from Washington, DC, issued a preliminary order on Thursday that prevents the government from collecting customs tariffs from two educational companies, the educational company Resources Inc. Hand2Mind Inc. , Who make most of its products in Asia.

In his rule, Conteraras saw that Trump lacked power under the 1977 Economic Forces Act of IEEPA to impose duties shown on four executive orders earlier this year.

The second court ruled against Trump's emergency use of definitions. Chris Kalonis/Swimming Pigeon via CNP/Instarages.com
Thousands of cars and trucks are seen from various brands in the Port Elizabeth storage facility on Thursday, April 3, 2025. Louise C Ribeiro for New York Post

“The international economic emergency authorities law does not allow the president to impose specific definitions,” Contraras wrote, adding that the statute “does not include the ability to impose a kind of overwhelming fees that Trump uses.”

He pointed out that “in the five decades since the age of EBA, no president has so far called on the statute … to impose definitions.”

Trump carries a scheme explaining mutual definitions during an event on April 2, 2025. AFP via Getty Images
Judge Rodolph Contrames said in the ruling that Trump lacked power to impose the duties shown on four executive orders earlier this year. Gety pictures

The decision, which is compatible with a separate ruling issued on Wednesday by the American International Trade Court in New York, makes another blow to the second Trump business schedule.

A committee of three judges of that court proverbed that the president's use of IEPA to justify the extensive “mutual definitions” was not acceptable.

“This use is unacceptable because it is not wise or ineffective, but because of [IEEPA] The committee wrote, “Do not allow this.”



Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *