US court tilts customs stop: Court of Appeal allows Trump measures again

The Reuters news agency reports. Previously, a US federal court had illegally declared President Trump’s far-reaching tariffs, which were imposed on an emergency law. A Federal Supreme Court in the United States has denied its government to impose extensive tariffs, citing an emergency law. This makes Trump’s aggressive trade policy that Financial markets Shaked worldwide and also cost private investors a lot of money, at least slowed down for the time being. However, his government immediately appealed against the decision.

The responsible court for international trade in New York ordered that the tariffs in question should be “lifted and their application permanently prohibited”. The decision affects almost all of the tariffs issued by Trump’s government – including those punitive taxes that the Republican had imposed on the “Day of Liberation” he described in early April, but also certain tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China.

The last word has not yet been spoken. The legal dispute is now likely to go through the instances. It is not excluded that an appellant will put the tariffs back into force until a final decision.

Several lawsuits against Trump’s penalty taxes

Trump had presented a far -reaching customs package at an event in an event in the Rosengarten of the White House and the USA announced the fight. Several countries reacted with the announcement of countermeasures, while others were looking for the path through negotiations.

At that time, Trump also imposed so -called mutual tariffs, which he founded with the trade deficit of the respective trading partner – temporarily resolved them because of the descent at the financial markets. At the same time, he imposed on universal tariffs of 10 percent that affect almost all over the world.

Among other things, a dozen US states before the court in New York – ten of them are ruled by the Democrats, two of Trump’s Republicans. Other opponents of Trump’s trade policy also filed a lawsuit against the tariffs. The national trade policy should not depend on Trump’s moods, it said in one of the applications.

Trump relies on an emergency due to trade deficits

Customs usually have to be approved by the US parliament – but in practice the president can independently impose tariffs under certain conditions. Trump argues that trade deficits with other countries are a national security risk and that there is a national emergency. With this justification, the Republican imposed the far -reaching tariffs by decree – and in this case the parliament. He used a law from 1977 that had never been used for tariffs before. The court in New York concluded that this is not right.

Kush Desai, a spokesman for the White House, sharply criticized the decision of the court. The trade deficits would have created a national emergency that weakens American communities, brought workers into need and weakened the US defense industry, it said in a statement that the German press agency in Washington was available. No elected judges would not have to decide how to deal with a national emergency. “President Trump has promised to put America in the first place.”

Trump regularly emphasizes to bring jobs back to the USA with the tariffs and to boost domestic production. At the same time, he took negotiations with several trading partners and used the tariffs as a means of pressure to force concessions. Great Britain has just closed a trading pact with the USA to avert high tariffs. With China, the US government also negotiated a reduction in mutual tariffs.

Main opponent EU and China

Especially against the European Union, Trump always stood up violently. He regularly accuses the Europeans to “rip off” the United States, while he wants to force more balance in world trade with higher tariffs on imports to the United States. Most recently, the trade dispute came up again: Trump surprisingly threatened the EU with punitive tariffs of 50 percent from June 1. A little later he pushed this measure up by a month. Now both sides want to find a solution by July 9th.

In his trading policy course, Trump also focuses on the second largest economy: China is the “greatest culprit” for him. Finally, both sides took a big step together during conversations in Geneva.

For Trump, his customs policy is also risky for Trump – even if the Republican does not want to know anything about it. Because an import customs works similarly to a tax. The tax must be paid to the state by the importing company – in this case, companies in the USA. Importing companies usually pass on the higher costs to consumers. This in turn can heat inflation.

Waiting in Berlin and Brussels

After the sensational decision of a US Federal Court against the customs policy of President Donald Trump, the situation remains confusing. While the government in Washington immediately appealed, both the European Union and the Federal Government reserved. The political and economic effects of the court decision are currently hardly foreseeable.

A spokesman for the Federal Ministry of Economics said in Berlin that ongoing judicial proceedings could not be commented on in the United States. “We continue to rely on the fact that a good solution for both sides can be achieved in the negotiations between the EU Commission and the US government,” it said.

Even the EU Commission responsible for trade policy did not initially want to comment on the court decision. She is currently negotiating with the US government on a possible deal for the mutual cancellation of tariffs and other trade restrictions.

US court prohibits an appeal for the emergency law

The Federal Supreme Court for International Trade in New York had prohibited Trump’s government of imposing far -reaching tariffs, citing an emergency law. In this way, Trump’s confrontation course in trade policy suffers a bitter setback.

The judges decided that the appeal to a law from 1977 in order to justify a national security risk through trade deficits is not right. The decision affects almost all of the tariffs issued by Trump’s government – including those punitive taxes that the Republican had imposed on the “Day of Liberation” he described in early April, but also certain tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China.

The US government sharply criticized the decision. Kush Desai, a spokesman for the White House, explained that trade deficits endangered American communities and the defense industry. No elected judges would not have to decide how to deal with a national emergency.

Several lawsuits against Trump’s penalty taxes

Trump’s tariffs have caused irritation worldwide. They were seen as one -sided escalation of the international trade conflicts and significantly burdened the financial markets. The European Union and China in particular are at the center of Trump’s trade policy measures. With punitive tariffs of up to 50 percent, Trump finally threatened the EU – however, these were briefly suspended again to create space for negotiations.

Several US states and other plaintiffs had sued Trump’s decrees. Ten of the plaintive states are ruled by Democrats, two of Republicans. They accused the president of shaping his customs policy in a moody and without parliamentary control.

Although the decision is a clear defeat for Trump, it is not the end of the legal dispute: the case is likely to go through the instances. Observers do not rule out that an appellate court temporarily puts the measures back into force. Until then, the trading policy situation remains tense.

White house accuses court of abuse of power

The White House has expressed sharp criticism that a federal court has classified large parts of the tariffs issued by US President Donald Trump as illegal. The judges of the responsible court for international trade in New York have “shamelessly misused their judicial power to tear the decision-making power of President Trump,” said Trump’s spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt in the US capital Washington. The US government was again confronted with an example of judicial assault last evening.

The United States had booked a trade deficit every year since 1975. “President Trump solves his promise to solve this problem,” Leavitt defended American customs policy. Trump’s justification for the introduction of the high tariffs is “legally flawless” and is based on common sense, she claimed. It was right that the president had rely on a national emergency than was about fentanyl or the trade deficit.

Leavitt indicated that the White House would follow the judicial order. At the same time, she also said that the government had taken legal action against it. In the interest of the country, the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately had to put an end to the whole. The government spokeswoman was optimistic about gaining the case in court. She also mentioned that she heard of another judicial decision against Trump’s tariffs.

Government spokeswoman: gives other legal means for tariffs

Nevertheless, the US President will continue his trade policy. Leavitt emphasized that he also had other legal powers with which he could introduce tariffs.

Washington / New York (dpa-AfX) / Reuters