lexpress.fr
Federal Appeals Court Rules Most Trump Tariffs Illegal
A federal appeals court ruled on August 29, 2025 that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal because the IEEPA does not grant him the authority to set them; however, enforcement is stayed until October 14, and the Supreme Court could hear the case in early November.
- What is the immediate impact of the federal appeals court's decision on tariffs imposed by the Trump administration?
- The court ruled that most tariffs imposed by Donald Trump are illegal due to exceeding the presidential authority granted by IEEPA. Enforcement is temporarily stayed until October 14th, allowing time for appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision could lead to a $200 billion refund to American businesses if upheld.
- What are the legal grounds for the court's decision, and what broader implications does it have for presidential power?
- The court's decision is based on the US Constitution, which grants Congress the power to levy taxes and regulate foreign commerce. The IEEPA, used by the Trump administration to justify tariffs, doesn't grant unlimited authority for tax matters; this limits the president's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs.
- What are the potential economic consequences if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling, and what are the likely scenarios for addressing the financial impact?
- If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, the US government may have to refund over $210 billion in overcharged tariffs. Potential scenarios include a large-scale federal refund or individual lawsuits by businesses. Either scenario introduces significant budget uncertainty and a potential increase in inflation.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a relatively neutral account of the court case, detailing both the ruling against Trump's tariffs and the administration's appeal to the Supreme Court. The framing is largely chronological, presenting the events in the order they occurred. However, the inclusion of the potential cost to the White House ("More than 210 billion dollars") and the potential for increased inflation could be interpreted as subtly emphasizing the negative consequences of Trump's actions.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective. Terms such as "judged illegal" and "confirmed this reasoning" are factual and avoid emotional language. However, phrases like "massive refund" and "additional inflationary pressure" might subtly evoke negative reactions in the reader, although they reflect potential outcomes.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the legal aspects of the case and the financial implications. It might benefit from including perspectives from businesses affected by the tariffs, economists' analyses of the potential economic impact, or a discussion of the broader political context surrounding the tariffs. The omission of these perspectives might limit the reader's full understanding of the situation. However, given the space constraints inherent in a news article, some degree of omission is to be expected.
Sustainable Development Goals
The court ruling against Donald Trump's tariffs could lead to a reduction in trade barriers and potentially promote fairer economic relations between countries. The potential refund of $200 billion in surtaxes could benefit businesses and potentially alleviate financial burdens on some companies, contributing to reduced inequality. However, the indirect nature stems from the fact that the ruling itself doesn't directly address inequality, but its economic consequences might.