Connect with us

Vermont

The Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s tariffs with Vermont ties – VTDigger

Published

5 months ago

November 5, 2025

Press Room

The Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s tariffs with Vermont ties – VTDigger

The Supreme Court is seen in the distance in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 20, 2025. File photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP

This story is based on stories by Violet Jira published on Nov. 5, 2025 by NOTUS, one before and one after the oral arguments.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday related to the legality of President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs in a case that won’t just be deciding the fate of his trade policy, but also could redefine the limits of presidential economic power.

The hearing involved appeals in a pair of cases that challenge the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including one with Vermont ties. Trump has used the law to bypass procedural norms and place extensive tariffs on enemies and trading partners alike without authorization from Congress.

A federal court ruled against Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2 lawsuits. Vermont was central to both.

by Habib Sabet
May 29, 2025, 6:28 pmMay 29, 2025, 10:04 pm

One of the cases includes Terry Precision Cycling, or Terry Cycling, a women’s cycling apparel company, as one of five small business plaintiffs. The group sued Trump and his administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade in April. In May, a panel of three federal judges struck down most of the president’s tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also largely backed the plaintiffs. The case was combined with another brought by private organizations impacted by the tariffs in Wednesday’s arguments in the Supreme Court.

The court also heard from a representative of 12 attorneys general, including Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, who sued on similar grounds.

During the arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the Trump administration’s actions — sometimes by contradicting the president.

Sauer faced a slew of skeptical inquiries from the justices who seemed to take issue with many of the Trump administration’s arguments, including that the president has broad authority to respond to international emergencies, Congress delegated the presidency this power, and tariffs are not taxes.

Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, the claim that tariffs are not a tax was central to Sauer’s argument, despite the fact that the president has framed them as revenue-raising.

“We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax,” Sauer said. “It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue raising tariffs.”

Trump regularly says tariffs are making the country richer. And earlier this year, the White House floated using tariffs as a revenue raiser to offset the cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who spoke recently at the University of Vermont, made clear that she didn’t buy Sauer’s argument on tariffs versus taxes.

“You say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. “They’re generating money from American citizens, revenue.”

‘Simply implausible’

How the justices decide the case will have major implications not just for Trump’s agenda but for how much unilateral power presidents have to regulate commerce.

During the arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch leaned heavily into the question of congressional authority. He seemed to take issue with the fact that it would be difficult for Congress to reclaim that authority should the Supreme Court give the Trump administration what it was asking for.

“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president. It’s a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives,” he argued.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical of the scope of the reciprocal tariffs Trump has placed on dozens of countries, allies and trading partners alike.

“Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are,” she asked.

The small businesses were represented by attorney Neal Katyal. He argued that tariffs are, in fact, a tax, and that the Trump administration was exceeding the authority Congress intended to give to the executive branch when it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“It’s simply implausible that in enacting IEEPA, Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country at any and all times,” Katyal said.

“And as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett just said, this is a one-way ratchet,” he continued. “We will never get this power back if the government wins this case. What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”

The Supreme Court has until the end of its term next summer to make a decision, but the case has so far been on an expedited track, leading some experienced court watchers to expect a decision before the end of the year.

Other routes for tariffs

The White House has projected confidence in its ability to win the case — press secretary Karoline Leavitt said officials believe the Supreme Court will rule in their favor. Still, contingency plans have long been in the works.

“The White House is always preparing for plan B,” she said at a briefing. “It would be imprudent of the president’s advisers not to prepare for such a situation. With that said, we are 100% confident in the president and his team’s legal argument and the merits of the law in this case, and we remain optimistic that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing. The importance of this case cannot be overstated.”

Trump has used the threat of tariffs in matters far beyond trade. The administration used a tariff investigation to pressure Brazil over its decision to prosecute former President Jair Bolsonaro. Trump attempted to use trade negotiations to stop Canada from backing Palestinian statehood. The threat of steep tariffs has been an essential leverage point in his peace negotiations between countries like India and Pakistan, as well as Russia and Ukraine.

The Supreme Court’s decision could stymie all of this.

Administration officials have indicated that even if they lose the case, they would find another way to levy tariffs.

There are multiple legal avenues to enact tariffs. Top Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has signaled the administration was considering use of Section 122 and then Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, if use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is deemed unlawful.

Multiple trade experts NOTUS spoke to said this would be the most plausible course of action for Trump to keep his tariffs alive if the court rules against him.

Peter Harrell, who served as senior director for international economics and competitiveness in the Biden White House, said “the most obvious choice” for the White House to temporarily maintain tariffs would be to invoke Section 122. That would allow tariffs of up to 15% for as long as 150 days on countries whose trade with the U.S. is unjustifiably imbalanced.

“That, to me, looks like the sort of obvious, immediate stop gap they could pull to keep many of their tariffs in place for a couple of months while they figure out what the longer term plan is,” he said.

Section 301 of the trade act allows an administration to launch investigations into specific countries and implement tariffs based on the results of that investigation. There are already active Section 301 investigations into China, Brazil and Nicaragua; the latter two were started under the administration of President Joe Biden. The Trump administration could begin more of them, but the investigations take months and again open the administration up to the possibility of lawsuits.

Over the past few months, the Trump administration has expanded its use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows him to put restrictions on the import of certain goods if they are found after an investigation to threaten national security.

But none of these powers is as expansive as the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which the Trump administration has used to enact crushing tariffs with the stroke of a pen.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act “only requires a finding of a national emergency, which is a more unilateral power within the president to make that determination,” said Everett Eissenstat, a partner at Squire Patton Boggs who represented the Trump administration on international trade matters as deputy director of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term. “There’s no investigation, there’s no congressional consultation, it’s just a declaration of emergency, and that unleashes the power to regulate commerce, regulate importation.”

He added that there “were certainly more limitations” on Section 301 and Section 232.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in the Trump administration’s favor, it’s possible that the ruling wouldn’t just give the administration the legal go-ahead on current tariff policy, but open the door for the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to be used even more broadly than Trump is currently using it.

For the importers, business owners, consumers and taxpayers who are impacted by the president’s trade and tariff policy, a decision from the Supreme Court in either direction is unlikely to offer significant relief from the pressures of the Trump tariff economy.

“Unfortunately, if you’re a business, you can celebrate a Supreme Court win if that’s the way it goes, but you’re not going to be off the hook,” Riley said. “Trump will continue to impose tariffs, continue to impose costs on Americans, but he just won’t have the unlimited authority that he’ll have if the Supreme Court allows the IEEPA tariffs to remain in place.”

Source link

Click to comment

Vermont

46 anti-Trump No Kings protests planned in Vermont. How to go

Published

11 hours ago

March 27, 2026

Press Room

46 anti-Trump No Kings protests planned in Vermont. How to go

Vermonters protest against deportations, stand in solidarity with LA

Vermonters marched up Church Street in solidarity of Los Angeles protestors and against the federal government’s immigration policies June 10.

Large scale anti-Trump protests are coming to Vermont for a third time, with at least 46 No Kings protests planned across the state for March 28.

This round of No Kings protests might be the biggest so far: organizers anticipate it’ll be “one of the largest single-day nonviolent nationwide protests in U.S. history,” with more than 3,000 events already planned across the country on March 28.

“As President Trump escalates his attempts to control us, it is on us, the people, to show that we will fight to protect one another and our country,” the “No Kings” website says. “If he believes we will roll over and allow him to take our freedoms, he is mistaken. We are coming together again on March 28 because we know we can overcome this repression when we unite.”

In Vermont, protests are being held in all corners of the state, from Bennington to Newport. There are about six protests listed in Burlington, including a march to City Hall, a New North End Honk and Wave and a rally at the intersection of Shelburne Rd and Hannaford Drive.

Here’s what to know ahead of the protests.

What are ‘No Kings’ protests and what does it mean?

In June 2025, large crowds of Vermont residents took part in the first round of “No Kings Day” protests, planned the same day as the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary celebration and the president’s birthday.

Another wave of nationwide “No Kings” protests came several months later in October, in which over seven million Americans joined events in all 50 states, according to the organization. In Burlington, thousands of protesters brought homemade signs protesting Trump, dressed in colorful inflatable costumes, played music and chanted.

Organizers behind the No Kings protests say that it is a “peaceful movement” to push back on President Donald Trump’s policies, including on immigration, foreign policy and the economy.

“With every ICE raid, every escalation abroad, and every abuse of power at home, Americans are rising up in opposition to Trump’s attempt to rule through fear and force. Each day Trump crosses a new red line, and more people are deciding they’ve had enough,” said Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, one of the many organizations backing the mass protests.

Others include American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, MoveOn and 50501.

No Kings protests near me: See events, rallies in Vermont

As of 2 p.m. on March 26, there were 46 No Kings events planned in Rhode Island for March 28. Some towns and cities are holding multiple events.

Here’s a list of events in Burlington:

Burlington New North End Honk and Wave: 11a.m. – 12:30 p.m., 1127 North Ave, Burlington
- “Invite your friends and neighbors and meet up at 11 a.m. at 1127 North Avenue along the sidewalks at the entrances of the Ethan Allen Shopping Plaza (home to Hannaford Supermarket and many other shops). Bring your signs, banners, noise makers, and American flags,” the listing reads. “This joyous, non-violent honk and wave action will wrap up at 12:30 p.m. Following the Honk and Wave, participants are welcome to proceed to City Hall Park to join the conclusion of the North End and South End marches.”
Patchen Road Overpass: 11 a.m. – 1 p.m., Patchen Road & Landfill Road, South Burlington
- “We’ll be unfurling our huge NO KINGS banners on the overpass as 4,000 – 5,000 vehicles per hours pass below on Interstate 89. Bring a sign, bring an American flag, and bring a friend,” reads the listing. It says to register and to follow the guidance of safety marshals, and encourages attendees to carpool as “parking is tight.”
Burlington South End March: 11 a.m. – 1:30 p.m., Calahan Park, 45 Locust St, Burlington
- “We’ll be marching from Calahan Park to City Hall Park,” says the event description. “If you don’t want to march or are unable please join us at City Hall park at 12:30 p.m. for singing, chanting and more.”
South Burlington: 11 a.m. – 12:30 p.m., Intersection of Shelburne Rd and Hannaford Dr in South Burlington, 1001 Shelburne Rd, South Burlington, VT
- “Join Champlain Valley Indivisible at the intersection of Shelburne Rd and Hannaford Drive in South Burlington to stand up and speak out against this administration’s unjust and cruel acts of violence,” the event listing says, adding that those interested should register.
Burlington March to City Hall: 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m., 1 S Prospect St., Burlington
Burlington Old North End March: 11 a.m. – 1:30 p.m., Roosevelt Park, 57 Oak St., Burlington
- “We’ll be marching from Roosevelt park to City Hall Park,” the listing says. “If you don’t want to march or are unable please join us at City Hall park at 12:30 p.m. for singing, chanting and more.”

Here’s a list of all the towns in Vermont holding protests so far, plus when, where and other helpful information listed on the event pages or provided in press releases:

Bellow Falls
Bennington
Bradford
Brandon
Brattleboro
Burlington
Charlotte
Chester
Essex Junction
Fair Haven
Fairfax
Hardwick
Hartford
Huntington
Jericho
Manchester
Middlebury
Milton
Milton
Montpelier
Morrisville
Newbury
Newport
Northfield
Randolph
Randolph
Richmond
Rutland
Saint Johnsbury
Shelburne
South Burlington
South Burlington
St. Albans
Wallingford
Waterbury
Westfield
Williston
Wilmington
Windsor
Winooski
Wolcott
Woodstock

More events may be planned. You can check the map on the No Kings website to see if your town is holding a protest.

What time are No Kings events?

“No Kings” protests in Vermont start at various times on March 28, with some events planned at 10 a.m. and others planned throughout the afternoon, according to the online map of events.

Contributing: Paris Barraza

Source link

Vermont

Vermont Sports Hall of Fame adds two members to 2026 induction class

Published

24 hours ago

March 26, 2026

Press Room

Vermont Sports Hall of Fame adds two members to 2026 induction class

An international ambassador for tennis from South Burlington and a three-sport captain at Burlington High School and the University of Vermont more than 100 years ago are the final members for the 2026 Vermont Sports Hall of Fame banquet, the organization announced in a news release on Thursday, March 26.

Jake Agna, the former legendary tennis coach at South Burlington High School, is the 2026 David Hakins inductee, which honors an individual or a group or organization for exceptional promotion of sports, athletics and recreation in the state. Fenwick Watkins, a pioneer and exceptional athlete and coach who helped break color barriers in sports in the early 1900s, has been named the hall’s historic inductee.

Agna and Watkins join 10 other members previously announced this year who will officially be enshrined during a celebration banquet at the Delta Marriott Burlington Hotel on 1117 Williston Road in South Burlington on Saturday, April 25.

The dinner begins with a reception at 5:30 p.m. followed by the induction ceremony. To purchase tickets to the 2026 event, visit the VSHOF website at vermontsportshall.com. The cost is $95 per plate with part of the proceeds going to Prevent Child Abuse Vermont, the longtime designated charity for VSHOF.

Over 38 years coaching girls tennis at South Burlington, Agana compiled a 489-95 record with eight perfect seasons, 16 Division I titles and 13 runner-up trophies before stepping down prior to the 2023 season.

Agna is also founded Kids on the Ball in 2000, which is designed to teach children life lessons such as relationships and respect by learning the game of tennis. He has led 31 trips to Cuba to help expand the sport. His tennis programs reach out to over 200 kids each day in school and after school programs.

Agna’s work to help resurface 10 courts and renovation of the National Tennis Center in Cuba in 2017 was recognized by the Tennis Channel.

Watkins was a three-sport star in football, basketball, baseball at Burlington before graduating in 1905. At UVM, he is believed to be the first Black captain of a non-historical Black college or university sport and was captain for all three sports at both BHS and UVM, according to VSHOF.

After UVM, Watkins went on to become a high school and college head coach in North Dakota at Concordia College (football) and what is now known as North Dakota State (baseball and football). He died in 1943.

The previous winners for the Hakins award are: Barry Stone (2024); Thomas Dunkley (2023); Ted Ryan (2022); Cochran’s Ski Area, Mickey & Ginny Cochran (2020); Mal Boright (2019); Helmut Lenes (2017); Ernie Farrar (2015); Tom Curley (2014) and Ray Pecor (2013).

The previous historic winners include: Leo Papineau, St. Michael’s College, athlete, coach and official (2025); Clarence Demar, South Hero, distance running, (2017); Fred Harris, Brattleboro, outdoors/ski jumping, (2015); James Taylor, Windsor, outdoors, (2014); and Charles Adams, Newport, National Hockey League, (2013).

Contact Alex Abrami at aabrami@freepressmedia.com. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter: @aabrami5.

Source link

Vermont

See the Brattleboro student who won the Poetry Out Loud state finals

Published

1 day ago

March 26, 2026

Press Room

See the Brattleboro student who won the Poetry Out Loud state finals

Beth McDermott
| Reporter assisted by AI

Eason DeMarsico-Thorne, a student at Brattleboro Union High School, won the 2026 Poetry Out Loud State Finals, held the Flynn on March 5, according to a community announcement.

DeMarsico-Thorne will represent Vermont at the national competition at the end of April in the nation’s capital. Gretchen Wertlieb of South Burlington High School was the runner-up, and Aiva Reed of Windsor High School placed third.

The state finals featured 10 students who recited poems over three rounds. The top three, with the highest cumulative scores after the first two rounds, advanced to the final round.

DeMarsico-Thorne recited “Fruit of the Flower” by Countee Cullen, “I Shall Return” by Claude Mckay and “A Southern Road” by Helene Johnson.

Wertlieb recited “To a Young Dancing Girl” by Elsa Gidlow, “Thoughts in Jail” by Katharine Rolston Fisher and “I shall forget you presently, my dear” (Sonnet IV), by Edna St. Vincent Millay.

Reed recited “Why We Oppose Women Travelling in Railway Trains” by Alice Duer Miller, “Militants to Certain Other Women” by Katharine Rolston Fisher and “If I Had Known” by Alice Moore Dunbar-Nelson.

The other finalists were Phoebe Gresham from Mount Mansfield Union High School, Ranee Hall from Thetford Academy, Marcus Burns from St. Johnsbury Academy, Taylor Daleb from Peoples Academy, Moya Thayer from Burlington High School, Theo Novak from Champlain Valley Union High School and Patrick Tester from Lyndon Institute.

Eighteen schools across Vermont registered to bring the national Poetry Out Loud program to their classrooms for the 2025-26 school year, reaching 2,000 students with about 60 teachers participating, according to the announcement. Fifteen students were selected by their teachers as school champions and participated in the statewide semifinals, held on Feb. 12 at the Barre Opera House.

DeMarsico-Thorne received $200 and advances to the national finals, where $50,000 in awards and school stipends are distributed. The state champion’s school receives $500 for the purchase of poetry materials. Wertlieb received $100, with $200 for her school.

Poetry Out Loud is supported by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Vermont Arts Council. Since the program began in 2005, more than 4 million students across the country have participated. The Poetry Foundation provides and administers the monetary prizes.

For more information about Vermont Poetry Out Loud, visit flynnvt.org/Education/poetry-out-loud.

This story was created with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at cm.usatoday.com/ethical-conduct.

Source link