Connect with us

Vermont

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

Published

4 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

Here are five places to ice skate in Vermont this winter

Published

2 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Here are five places to ice skate in Vermont this winter

How to see a reindeer in Vermont

Vermont Reindeer Farm in West Charleston is home to the only three reindeer, or caribou, living in the state. Here’s what it’s like to visit them.

Looking for ways to enjoy the rest of the cold New England winter?

While staying indoors often seems better than facing the cold, the region has lots of outdoor activities that brighten the winter season, including skiing, snow tubing and, of course, ice skating. From Burlington to Stratton, Vermont has plenty of indoor and outdoor ice rinks, many of which offer lessons, concessions and special events in addition to ice skating.

Here are five places in Vermont where you can go ice skating this winter.

Spruce Peak Village Ice Rink

This outdoor ice rink is located in the heart of the village at Spruce Peak, a ski resort in Stowe formerly known as Stowe Mountain Lodge.

Guests can skate daily surrounded by the majestic ski slopes of the Green Mountains. On Friday nights, the Spruce Peak Village ice rink hosts glow skate parties with a light show, glow sticks and a live DJ. Skate rentals and lessons are also available for purchase.

When: Noon to 6 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday or noon to 9 p.m. Friday and Saturday

Where: Spruce Peak, 7412 Mountain Road, Stowe

Ice Haus Arena

Located up at Jay Peak Resort near the Canadian border, Ice Haus Arena is the newest ice-skating arena in the state. The indoor rink is complete with bleacher seating, a rental and repair shop, four locker rooms, a pro shop, a snack bar and of course, an NHL-sized rink where guests can participate in public skating or skating with sticks and pucks.

General admission to the rink is $6, with skate rentals available for $6, skate sharpening available for $7 and helmets available for $3.

When: Online schedule updated daily

Where: Jay Peak Resort, 830 Jay Peak Road, Jay

C. Douglas Cairns Recreation Arena

This indoor arena has not one, but two NHL-size ice rinks for hockey, public skating and stick and puck practices. Off the ice, Cairns Arena also offers a pro shop and a cafe with hot food, snacks and drinks.

Skating at Cairns costs $5 for adults or $3 for children and seniors, and skates are available to rent for an additional $5.

When: 10 a.m. to noon Tuesday through Thursday, with exceptions. Check the online schedule at cairnsarena.finnlyconnect.com..

Where: 600 Swift St., South Burlington

Mill House at Stratton Mountain Resort

Surrounded by the scenic Stratton Mountain Resort, Mill House Pond is the perfect outdoor spot for public ice skating or skating lessons.

Public skating costs $20, and bookings can be made online.

When: Noon to 8 p.m. Saturday or noon to 6 p.m. Thursday-Friday and Sunday-Monday

Where: Stratton Mountain Resort, 5 Village Lodge Road, Stratton Mountain

Riley Rink at Hunter Park

A large indoor sports facility, Northshore Civic Center has an Olympic-sized ice rink, along with a concession stand and retail shop. The rink offers public skating, stick and puck practice, hockey and skating lessons.

When: Check the online schedule for weekly updates

Where: 410 Hunter Park Road, Manchester Center

Source link

Vermont

Unemployment claims in Vermont increased last week

Published

14 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Unemployment claims in Vermont increased last week

Staff reports
| USA TODAY Network

Initial filings for unemployment benefits in Vermont rose last week compared with the week prior, the U.S. Department of Labor said Thursday.

New jobless claims, a proxy for layoffs, increased to 375 in the week ending February 21, up from 357 the week before, the Labor Department said.

U.S. unemployment claims rose to 212,000 last week, up 4,000 claims from 208,000 the week prior on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Rhode Island saw the largest percentage increase in weekly claims, with claims jumping by 132.0%. Michigan, meanwhile, saw the largest percentage drop in new claims, with claims dropping by 49.9%.

USA TODAY Co. is publishing localized versions of this story on its news sites across the country, generated with data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s weekly unemployment insurance claims report.

Source link

Vermont

Vermont high school sports scores, results, stats for Thursday, Feb. 26

Published

1 day ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

Vermont high school sports scores, results, stats for Thursday, Feb. 26

The 2025-2026 Vermont high school winter season has begun. See below for scores, schedules and game details (statistical leaders, game notes) from basketball, hockey, gymnastics, wrestling, Nordic/Alpine skiing and other winter sports.

TO REPORT SCORES

Coaches or team representatives are asked to report results ASAP after games by emailing sports@burlingtonfreepress.com. Please submit with a name/contact number.

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

▶ Contact Judith Altneu at JAltneu@usatodayco.com. Follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter: @Judith_Altneu.