(NEW YORK) — Days after attacking a megabill that advances President Donald Trump’s agenda, Elon Musk slammed it again on Tuesday calling it a “disgusting abomination” in a post on X.
“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — A group of business groups and conservative lawyers are preparing a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, arguing he does not have the legal authority to impose them.
Sources familiar with the effort say they are preparing to file the challenge in the coming weeks, possibly as soon as this Friday.
One prominent legal figure close to Trump told ABC News there is “a very good chance” the U.S. Supreme Court would find Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional.
The issue is this: Congress, not the president, has the power to impose taxes and regulate trade. In imposing these tariffs, President Trump cited the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the the president power to regulate international commerce in the event of a national emergency.
But the IEEPA — which specifically cites the power to impose sanctions and seize foreign assets — does not mention tariffs. And, even if one argues the right to impose tariffs is implied, it’s not clear what “national emergency” could justify the imposition of global tariffs.
“There is a strong argument that the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA are not legal or constitutional,” a prominent conservative lawyer close to President Trump told ABC News. “Under that particular statute, tariffs are not listed amongst the various actions a president can take in response to the declaration of a nation emergency.”
The lawyer adds: “And when you combine that with the fact that Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] clearly gives Congress the power to impose duties — tariffs — I think those two things in combination raise a very, very serious legal question.”
Another conservative lawyer familiar with the expected legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs predicted the Supreme Court would rule 9-0 against the administration if it reaches the high court.
A lawsuit has already been filed against the 20% sanctions Trump imposed on China earlier this year. The White House cited the IEEPA in imposing those tariffs as well, and the president said they were in response to China’s failure to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States.
The suit was filed in a federal court in Florida last week by The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative legal, on behalf of a Florida-based paper company called Simplified.
Trump’s tariffs are the first time a president has attempted to impose global tariffs by citing the IEEPA. The steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed on China during his first term where narrower and done under a different congressional authorization. But that act doesn’t specifically give the president the authority to impose tariffs — and it’s not clear what the emergency is that would justify his actions under the law.
Tariffs have never previously been imposed under the emergency power Trump is using here. The tariffs he imposed in his first term (and President Joe Biden’s tariffs, too) were imposed citing different congressional authorizations.
(NEWARK, N.J.) — Newark Mayor Ras Baraka filed a lawsuit against interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba on Tuesday, accusing her of malicious prosecution over his arrest outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility last month.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and is against Habba and the Department of Homeland Security special agent who Baraka claims unlawfully took him into custody on May 9 at Delaney Hall, where he was joined by three members of Congress for what they said they intended to be an inspection of conditions at the detention facility.
Baraka accuses Habba and Assistant Homeland Security Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin of seeking to politicize his arrest by promoting a “false and defamatory narrative” about the events that led to him being taken into custody.
While Habba and McLaughlin accused Baraka of attempting to “storm” the facility, his lawsuit noted he was actually invited onto the property by an agent of the GEO Group, a private prison operator that runs Delaney Hall, and was only placed under arrest after he had exited the gates when instructed.
“The false Affidavit was made with malice, particularly seeking to assure that the evening news included videos of the Black Mayor of Newark, New Jersey being led away in handcuffs by federal officials,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit also takes issue with what it describes as the unusual treatment of Baraka following his arrest. It said he was kept in custody for over five hours before making a first appearance before a judge, whereas typically people are given a summons after being charged with the petty offense of trespassing.
Habba’s office moved to dismiss its case against Baraka, though prosecutors in a May 21 hearing were admonished by the federal judge assigned to Baraka’s case who said the charges against him appeared to be rushed and based on politics.
“The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, followed swiftly by the dismissal of these trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrisome misstep by your office,” Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa said. “The apparent rush in this case, culminating today in the embarrassing retraction of charges, suggests a failure to adequately investigate, to carefully gather facts and to thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power.”
Habba posted on X Monday night in response to a report on Baraka’s planned lawsuit, writing, “My advice to the mayor – feel free to join me in prioritizing violent crime and public safety. Far better use of time for the great citizens of New Jersey.”
Federal prosecutors have separately charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., for allegedly assaulting agents outside the Delaney Hall facility. McIver has said she plans to plead not guilty and vigorously disputes the charges.
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be able to survive a legal challenge, thanks in part to a Japanese zipper company that sued the Nixon administration 50 years ago.
Earlier this week, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Donald Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs — basing his ruling on the precedent from a 1970s court case — but stopped short of issuing an order affirming the president’s right to impose sweeping tariffs.
In a largely technical ruling issued on Tuesday, U.S. Judge T. Kent Wetherell II transferred one of the first lawsuits challenging Trump’s tariffs to a different federal court while also weighing in on the legality of the controversial tariffs. Florida-based planner company Emily Ley Paper sued over the tariffs in April, asking Wetherell to invalidate them because Trump lacks the power to impose tariffs himself.
According to the judge, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 gives Trump the authority to set tariffs for reasons other than raising revenue. Wetherell wrote that Trump’s justification for the tariffs — both stemming the flow of illicit drugs into the country and resolving a trade imbalance — is sufficient to satisfy the terms set by Congress.
“This is a civil action commenced against the United States and it ‘arises out of’ a federal law—IEEPA—so the dispositive question framed by the parties’ filings is whether IEEPA ‘provid[es] for … tariffs,'” he wrote. “Defendants contend that it does; Plaintiffs contend that it doesn’t. The Court agrees with Defendants …”
The decision is at best a symbolic victory for the Trump administration, which is fending off a half dozen lawsuits challenging the legality of the recent “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Judge Wetherell ultimately decided to transfer the case from a federal court in Florida to the Court of International Trade in New York, meaning that, despite his favorable view of the tariffs, he won’t be the one deciding the case.
But the decision marks the first time a federal judge has suggested Trump’s imposition of tariffs falls within his authority as president, offering a positive sign that the Trump administration may find a receptive audience at the Court of International Trade. During two hearings over the last week, judges at the Court of International Trade have wrestled with the same question about Trump’s authority.
The question comes down to the interpretation of the 1970s law that Trump used to impose his tariffs. The IEEPA gives the president the right to “regulate” imports but does not explicitly mention tariffs. Lawyers challenging the tariffs have argued that Trump’s interpretation of the law oversteps his authority by treading into an issue controlled by Congress, but the Trump administration has pointed judges to a court decision related to the IEEPA’s legal predecessor — the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — to guide the way.
Back when President Richard Nixon confronted the country’s 1971 economic crisis with steep tariffs on Japanese goods, a zipper company based in Japan called Yoshida sued Nixon over the tariffs.
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the predecessor to the Court of International Trade, sided with the government and held that the TWAE gives the president the power to impose tariffs.
According to Wetherell, the same reasoning would apply 50 years later to the IEEPA, meaning Trump has the power to impose tariffs without the help of Congress. “The reasoning in Yoshida is persuasive, and the Court sees no reason why it would not apply to IEEPA because the operative language of IEEPA is identical to the operative language in TWEA,” the judge wrote.
Despite losing its legal battle, Yoshida remains in business today. Now operating under the name YKK, it produces more zippers than any other company in the world.
