An American court of appeal judged that most of the prices issued by US President Donald Trump are illegal, creating a potential legal confrontation that could upset his foreign policy program.
The decision affects Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” rates, imposed on most countries in the world, as well as other tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada.
In a decision 7-4, the American Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump’s argument according to which the prices were authorized under a law on emergency economic powers, calling them “invalid contrary to the law”.
The decision will not take effect until October 14, to give the administration time to ask the Supreme Court of the United States to take over the case.
Trump criticized the court of appeal and his decision on social truth, saying: “If it is authorized to stand, this decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”
He wrote: “Today, a very partisan court of appeal said that our prices should be deleted, but they know that the United States of America will finally win.
“If these prices disappeared, it would be a total disaster for the country. This would make us financially weak, and we must be strong.”
Trump had justified the prices under the International Economic Economic Powers (IEEPA), which gives the President the power to act against “unusual and extraordinary” threats.
Trump said a national emergency on trade, arguing that a commercial imbalance was harmful to US national security. But the court judged that the tariff taxation was not in the mandate of the president and that the implementation of withdrawals was “a basic power of the congress”.
In its 127-page judgment, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit said that the IEEPA “mentions neither the prices (nor any of his synonyms) or procedural guarantees which contain clear limits in the power of the president to impose prices”.
The power to impose taxes and prices therefore continues to belong to the Congress, ruled on the court, and the ieepa has not replaced this.
The court wrote that it was unlikely that when the Congress adopted the law in 1977, it was intended to “deviate from its previous practice and to grant the unlimited president the authority to impose prices”.
“Whenever Congress intends to delegate the authority to impose prices on the president, it does so explicitly, either using unequivocal terms such as prices and duties, or via a global structure which clearly indicates that Congress refers to prices,” the judges wrote.
The decision comes in response to two proceedings brought by small businesses and a coalition of American states.
They were brought after Trump’s decrees in April, which imposed a reference rate of 10% on almost all countries of the world, as well as “reciprocal” prices intended to correct commercial imbalances with dozens of countries. Trump said that the date of the “Liberation Day” for America of unfair trade policies.
In May, the International Commerce based in New York said the prices were illegal. This decision was suspended during the appeal process.
In addition to these prices, Friday’s decision also reduces prices on Canada, Mexico and China, which, according to Trump, is necessary to stop the importation of drugs.
However, the decision does not apply to other prices, such as those imposed on steel and aluminum, which were brought under another presidential authority.
Before the decision, the lawyers of the White House argued that the invalidation of the prices would lead to a financial collapse of 1929 style, a stock market crash that led to the great depression.
“Suddenly, revoking the president’s tariff authority under the IEPA would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, our foreign policy and our economy,” they wrote in a letter.
“The president believes that our country would not be able to reimburse the thousands of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to a financial ruin.”
The decision also raises issues about the certain nations agreements agreed with the United States to reduce pricing rates.
The latest development means that the case is now almost certain to go to the Supreme Court, which in recent years has known a skeptical opinion towards the presidents who are trying to implement new radical policies which are not directly authorized by the Congress.
During the presidency of Joe Biden, the court expanded what he called the “doctrine of major questions” to invalidate democratic efforts to use existing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions by power plants and to forgive student loan debt for millions of Americans.
The nine judges of the Haut Court, if they agree to consider the case, could weigh if the vast pricing program of Trump is another example of presidential surpassing or sufficiently based on the law and the presidential authority.
Even if the Court of Appeal has given the President a defeat, the White House can be reconstructed in the fact that only three of the 11 judges of the Court were appointed by the Republicans.
The Supreme Court has six people named Republicans, three of whom were selected by Trump itself.
