Politics
Trump’s worldwide tariffs run into sharp skepticism at the Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s signature plan to impose import taxes on products coming from countries around the world ran into sharp skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Most of the justices, conservative and liberal, questioned whether the president acting on his own has the power to set large tariffs as a weapon of international trade.
Instead, they voiced the traditional view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs.
Trump and his lawyers rely on an emergency powers act adopted on a voice vote by Congress in 1977. That measure authorizes sanctions and embargoes, but does not mention “tariffs, duties” or other means of revenue-raising.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he doubted that law could be read so broadly.
The emergency powers law “had never before been used to justify tariffs,” he told D. John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general. “No one has argued that it does until this particular case.”
Congress has authorized tariffs in other laws, he said, but not this one. Yet, it is “being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for — in any amount on any product from any country for — in any amount for any length of time.”
Moreover, the Constitution says Congress has the lead role on taxes and tariffs. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress,” he said.
The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.
Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.
But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.
Two lower courts ruled for small-business owners and said Trump had exceeded his authority.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on a fast-track basis with the aim of ruling in a few months.
In defense of the president and his “Liberation Day” tariffs, Trump’s lawyers argued these import duties involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs,” not taxes that raise revenue, he said.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.
“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayor said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”
Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch may hold the deciding vote, and he said he was wary of upholding broad claims of presidential power that rely on old and vague laws.
The court’s conservative majority, including Gorsuch, struck down several far-reaching Biden administration regulations on climate change and student forgiveness because they were not clearly authorized by Congress.
Both Roberts and Gorsuch said the same theory may apply here. Gorsuch said he was skeptical of the claim that the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.
In the future, “could the President impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” he asked.
Yes, Sauer replied, “It’s very likely that could be done.”
Congress had the lawmaking power, Gorsuch said, and presidents should not feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.
She agreed that the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.
Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared to be leaning against the challenge to the president’s tariffs.
Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.
A former White House lawyer, Kavanaugh said it would be unusual for the president to have the full power to bar imports from certain countries, but not the lesser power to impose tariffs.
Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.
Although they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.
But Wednesday, the justices did not sound split along the usual ideological lines.
The court’s ruling is not likely to be the final word on tariffs, however. Several other past laws allow the president to impose temporary tariffs for reasons of national security.
Politics
DHS slams Democrat Sen Chris Van Hollen claim, says illegal alien caused crash while fleeing ICE
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Saturday pushed back on claims by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., that ICE agents struck an “asylum seeker,” saying the man is an illegal immigrant who caused a crash while trying to evade arrest.
DHS told Fox News that the man in question is a Honduran illegal immigrant with a final order of removal dating back to 2018.
According to DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers attempted to arrest the individual, identified as Ever Omar Alvarenga-Rios, on Thursday in Baltimore, but he allegedly tried to evade arrest.
When officers conducted a vehicle stop, Alvarenga allegedly failed to comply with law enforcement and “drove recklessly” through the city, DHS said.
DHS SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT INJURED HEAD AFTER HITTING CONCRETE WALL WHILE FLEEING ICE, DENIES BEATING CLAIMS
DHS said a migrant caused a crash while attempting to evade ICE agents in Baltimore. (Department of Homeland Security)
DHS claimed that Alvarenga then “slammed on his brakes,” causing a multi-vehicle crash.
He then attempted to flee on foot and ignored law enforcement commands, DHS said, adding that ICE officers “followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to make the arrest.”
DHS said the two officers involved in the incident were injured and taken to the hospital.
DHS SAYS ICE AGENTS RAMMED BY VEHICLES AMID MINNEAPOLIS ENFORCEMENT SURGE: ‘AGGRESSIVELY ASSAULTED’
DHS disputed Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s, D-Md., account of an ICE incident involving a migrant in Baltimore. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
“This illegal alien broke our laws, resisted arrest, sent two ICE law enforcement officers to the hospital, and endangered the general public. Thankfully both our officers are expected to make a full recovery,” DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said in a statement.
“This dangerous attempt to resist arrest comes after sanctuary politicians have encouraged illegal aliens to evade arrest by hosting webinars instructing illegal aliens how to avoid being caught. Sanctuary politicians must stop encouraging this reckless behavior that endangers illegal aliens, our officers, and the public,” she added.
Van Hollen on Saturday posted photos on social media of the man in a hospital bed, describing him as an “asylum seeker” who was rear-ended by an ICE vehicle while driving to work Thursday in Baltimore.
DHS says Ever Omar Alvarenga-Rios is an “illegal alien [who] resisted arrest [and] sent two ICE law enforcement officers to the hospital.” (Getty Images, File)
According to Van Hollen, the man suffered “significant injuries to his head, chest, back and hands.”
The Maryland Democrat also said the man was detained and claimed ICE was violating his rights by denying him access to attorneys.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Van Hollen said that ICE under the Trump administration “continues to prevent Ever Alvarenga from meeting with attorneys while in the hospital — preventing them from receiving full updates on his health condition or discussing his case so that the full set of facts can come to light.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“They have also blocked him from signing a privacy release so my office can make further inquiries. No matter what the Trump Administration says, the Constitution applies to everyone in the United States,” Van Hollen added. “Mr. Alvarenga has a right to due process and full access to his legal representation. By standing in the way, it looks like the Administration has something to hide.”
Politics
House Democrats to hold California ‘shadow hearings’ on midterm election security
House Democrats will hold a pair of “shadow hearings” in California next week on the upcoming midterm elections — part of a broader party effort to defend state voting systems against mounting critiques and threats of intervention from the Trump administration.
Such hearings, similar to those recently held in Los Angeles on President Trump’s immigration raids, provide Democrats an opportunity to highlight issues their majority Republican counterparts won’t schedule for more formal hearings in Washington.
The hearings — scheduled for Los Angeles on Tuesday and San Francisco on Thursday — will feature testimony from voting and elections experts, and will be led by Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee with oversight of elections, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the former House speaker.
Morelle, in a statement to The Times, said, “Democracy’s defenses are under attack” and must be defended.
“We will not let President Trump and House Republicans’ efforts to take over our elections prevail. We’re going to use every tool in our toolbox and that includes working with pro-democracy allies in communities across the country,” he said. “I look forward to hearing about the work being done in California to protect democracy as we fight on the ground and in Congress.”
Pelosi, in her own statement to The Times, said protecting democracy “demands vigilance, transparency, and action,” and the shadow hearings “will bring together voices on the front lines of election security, voting rights, and accountability to ensure that every American’s vote is protected and every institution earns the public’s trust.”
“At a time of rampant threats to our democratic system, we must strengthen and defend the integrity of our elections to reaffirm that our government is of, by, and for the people,” she said.
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), chair of the Democratic Caucus, and other Democrats from California are also expected to attend. Republican members of Congress are not expected to be there.
The hearings will be the first in a while to be led — at least in part — by Pelosi, 86, who gave up her position in party leadership and does not currently hold any committee assignments. She announced in November that she will not seek reelection.
Trump has alleged for years, without evidence, that U.S. elections are undermined and swayed by widespread voter fraud, and that such fraud cost him the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden. He and his personal attorneys have repeatedly argued as much in court, but always lost — in part because they could never produce any evidence to back their claims.
Since retaking the White House last year, Trump has continued pushing his baseless claims, and pushed his administration to attack voting systems — particularly in blue states where he has been unpopular.
In September, Trump loyalists in the Justice Department sued California and other states for their voter rolls and other sensitive voter information, but were pushed back by the courts.
In January, the FBI raided and seized 2020 election records from an elections office in Fulton County, Ga., that was the subject of Trump’s allegations of voter fraud in 2020.
In February, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting his party. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
This week, Trump issued an executive order purporting to give federal agencies control over ballot processing by the U.S. Postal Service.
Trump administration officials and allies have also raised concerns that they might send immigration agents to polling locations during the midterms, in part by refusing to rule out such a move in the wake of mass deployments of such agents into American cities to pursue Trump’s mass deportation agenda.
Trump has framed his efforts to end voting by mail — which he recently did himself — and increase voter identification requirements as “common sense” steps to combat fraud that most Americans agree with. A vast majority of California voters cast ballots by mail, including nearly 90% in last year’s special election on Proposition 50, the state’s mid-decade redistricting measure.
Democrats and many elections experts have rejected Trump’s election claims as baseless, defended state-run systems as safe and secure, and said his demands for stricter voter ID regulations would disenfranchise millions of U.S. citizen voters who lack the sort of documents he wants to mandate — including women who changed their name in marriage.
Voting experts say fraudulent votes, including by noncitizens, are rare, and that there is no evidence that fraud swings U.S. elections.
States including California have joined voting rights organizations in suing to block Trump’s various attempts to intervene in state-run elections, including his order last week and a previous one purporting to place new federal requirements on voter identification and proof of citizenship.
California officials and others have repeatedly noted that federal law gives states the right to administer elections as they see fit, and promised to fight any attempts by the president or his administration to infringe on state election powers.
Local elections officials in California have also been preparing for potential election day interruptions from the Trump administration.
Scheduled to participate in the hearings were experts from the UCLA Voting Rights Project, Loyola Law School, the League of Women Voters of California, Common Cause California, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF.
Politics
FBI’s Patel delivers blunt warning to law enforcement attackers: ‘We’re going to put you down’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FBI Director Kash Patel issued a direct warning to anyone who attacks law enforcement, vowing Saturday that those who “touch a cop” will be tracked down and arrested amid growing concerns over violence against officers.
The comments came while Patel was speaking on SiriusXM Patriot’s “Breitbart News Saturday,” discussing violence against federal officers.
“You have to back the blue,” Patel said. “I say the following to as many officers and Americans that I get in front of: If you touch a cop, we’re going to put you down. And that’s what we’re doing.”
He said the FBI is “going to back our partners,” noting that any criminal who assaults or impedes law enforcement is “going to face the full force of law enforcement.”
FBI Director Kash Patel had a stern warning for anyone who wishes to harm law enforcement professionals. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, File)
CHICAGO’S POLICE CHIEF PUTS CRIMINALS ON NOTICE AFTER FEDERAL AGENTS TARGETED IN WEEKEND CONFRONTATIONS
“We’re not saying that you can’t go out there and peacefully protest,” Patel said. “We are simply saying, … you cannot interfere with [an officer in their] lawful execution of [their] lawful duty.
Since the start of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown, the Department of Homeland Security has reported violence against federal agents spiked to a record high.
DHS SHUTDOWN PUTTING AMERICANS AT RISK AS WORLD CUP SECURITY PREP ‘SIGNIFICANTLY BEHIND’: SEN FETTERMAN
The director added police around the country are “so empowered by the fact that we are backing the blue, that they know they have that backing.”
“They also know that if they are physically harmed, they’re just not going to have some perp get away with it,” he said. “We’re going to go find them and we’re going to arrest them.”
Patel’s stance on the issue has remained consistent throughout his time serving in the administration; In June, he posted a similar statement on social media.
Patel said his agency will always “back the blue.” (Stephanie Tacy/NurPhoto via Getty Images, File)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Hit a cop, you’re going to jail… doesn’t matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you,” Patel wrote in a June 7 X post. “If the local police force won’t back our men and women on the thin blue line, we @FBI will.”
The FBI did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
-
South-Carolina1 week agoSouth Carolina vs TCU predictions for Elite Eight game in March Madness
-
Atlanta, GA16 hours ago1 teenage girl killed, another injured in shooting at Piedmont Park, police say
-
Vermont1 week ago
Skier dies after fall at Sugarbush Resort
-
Movie Reviews3 days agoVaazha 2 first half review: Hashir anchors a lively, chaos-filled teen tale
-
Politics1 week agoTrump’s Ballroom Design Has Barely Been Scrutinized
-
Atlanta, GA1 week agoFetishist ‘No Kings’ protester in mask drags ‘Trump’ and ‘JD Vance’ behind her wheelchair
-
Entertainment4 days agoInside Ye’s first comeback show at SoFi Stadium
-
Politics1 week agoJD Vance says he was ‘obsessed’ with UFOs, believes aliens are actually ‘demons’