President Donald Trump's wide use of tariffs represents an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power that violates legal precedent, lawyers argued before a US federal appeals court. The case challenges import taxes imposed this year, including tariffs on Canada related to fentanyl and illegal immigration.The Trump administration maintains that Congress has granted the White House extensive authority to respond to emergencies. .Alberta's 'standard practice’ review of Christian worship singer Sean Feucht’s free concert.However, a trade court largely rejected this argument in May.US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now hearing the case, which centres on fundamental questions about the balance of powers in the US federal government. The appeals court heard oral arguments with all 11 judges present. .The case will likely reach the Supreme Court for final resolution.Neal Katyal, representing several small importers challenging the tariffs, argued that Trump claims the ability to "do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants – so long as he declares an emergency.”"That is as major a question as it gets, a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in 200 years," said Katyal. "And the consequences are staggering.".Taxpayers Federation calls for cuts to Sask arts sponsorships, funds 'Baby Back B*tch' music video.Congress has previously granted limited tariff authority to presidents, which Trump has used to tax imports of copper, steel, cars, and auto parts. However, various groups challenged his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for additional tariffs, including global "Liberation Day" tariffs and those imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China over fentanyl flows and illegal immigration..The IEEPA legislation makes no specific reference to tariffs."Tariffs and taxation are always tempting for kings and for presidents, and so that’s why that power was located in Congress. And every single time Congress has departed and given that power to the president, they’ve done so clearly," said Katyal.“If the government is going to have that power, then Congress has to give it to them clearly. This is not an elephant in a mouse hole. This is a galaxy in a keyhole.”.OLDCORN: From aprons to extremism? Traditional values are not ‘extremist’.Federal lawyers counter that courts previously allowed President Richard Nixon to impose tariffs under similar predecessor legislation. They argue the president can act during emergencies when facing extraordinary threats from outside the US.Brett Shumate, representing the federal government, said Trump used tariffs in response to genuine problems facing America. .Shumate pointed to an increase in the trading deficit over four years that has reached a "tipping point," affecting military readiness and domestic manufacturing capabilities.Some judges expressed support for the government's position. Judge Kimberly Moore said the idea that trade imbalances damage US interests "bothers me" and expressed concern about compromised military readiness..Pro-Hamas activists push for ‘Apartheid-Free Zone’ in Mississauga.The government argues that courts have limited ability to question presidential judgment about what “constitutes” an emergency. Shumate contended that Trump's tariff use has proven effective, providing leverage for negotiations that led to new trade deals with the European Union, Britain, and Japan.No agreements have been reached with Canada or Mexico. .Trump extended Mexico talks by 90 days on Thursday, hours after warning that Canadian support for Palestinian statehood "will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them."Canada got slapped with a 35% tariff, with CUSMA goods being exempted..Saskatoon approves permit for US Christian artist Sean Feucht’s concert, mayor ‘deeply concerned’.In May, the Court of International Trade unanimously ruled that Trump acted "contrary to law." Three judges, including one Trump appointee, ordered the lifting of tariffs on Canada and Mexico related to fentanyl concerns and global "Liberation Day" tariffs. The ruling remains stayed pending the appeals court decision.
