When Victor Schwartz started the New York City wine company for nearly 40 years, he never expected to face the most powerful person in the world.
But Schwartz and his company VOS are the main prosecutors in a legal battle against some Donald Trump’s tariff, in a state that could have economic effects around the world.
“I did not start my company with an idea like that I will one day sue President of the United States,” Schwartz told CBC News. “This was not my goal in life. I just wanted to bring a really nice wine for sale to the people they enjoyed.”
However, Schwartz was an effective role in obtaining a dangerous legal kick against Trump’s tariff policies on Wednesday, When the court ruled The administration has exceeded its right to impose some of these definitions and had to stop collecting them.
Short -life victory
However, victory was short when, a day after the US Federal Appeal Court The emergency proposal was given This would allow the administration to continue the definitions, at least temporarily.
Shortz appears to take a step by step.
“This is just part of the operation. It is not as if we thought that we won the case after this decision (Wednesday) this process, we learned that it would be appealed,” he said.
In February, Trump protested the IEEPA Economic Forces Law in 1977 (IEPA) to impose a tariff on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of migrants and drugs throughout the American border was a national emergency and that the three countries needed to exert more effort to stop it.
Last month, Trump also cited IEPA when he imposed what he indicated as a “mutual” tariff, which, he said, was necessary to address the American trade balance with other countries. He later suspended this 90 -day customs tariff to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to American exports.
On the verdict on Wednesday, a committee of three judges in the American International Commercial Court, which is based in the New York, found that the president exceeded his authority when he protested this law.
The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits. One of them was presented by the non -partisan Freedom Justice Center on behalf of five small American companies, including VOS choices, which import goods from countries that target definitions. The other lawsuit was filed by 12 US states.
Schwartz says when the first decision fell on Wednesday, he was not quite sure, which means that he made it clear as a friend of the lawyer.
“Then I was very angry, and I knew it was a really good thing for everyone, for us, for small companies all over the country, and for global trade, did you know?” He said.
The definitions are “just a terrible and terrible effect on what we are trying to do here.”
He celebrated his apartment in Manhattan with his wife, and of course a special wine bottle, Vermanino from France.
His company, which he runs with his daughter Chloe, imports wine from 16 countries and distributes them to the neighboring states. Schwartz says he runs a family company working with family operations and family farms in Europe and the United States
Request to join the case
Schwartz says he did not seek a legal victory, but he discovered through a family member that Elijah Somman, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason University, would file a case against definitions. Schwartz says he called Somin just to tell him what was going on in his manufacture and that Somin was very interested in hearing his story.
“A long short story, they asked me to join the case, then they finally asked me to be the main prosecutor,” he said. “This is what really developed. I am a very unintended prosecutor here. I didn’t go out for this battle.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney says that the American court’s decision, which led to the tariff of some of Donald Trump’s tariff indicates that they are “illegal and unjustified.” A committee of three judges ruled that the president exceeded his constitutional authority using emergency authorities to impose comprehensive fees on international goods.
He says the first time he reads the legal complaint, in the name of his company, on this, he laughed “a kind of madness.”
“VOS choices against Trump.” “It was like a kind of dream,” Schwartz said.
“Wo”, this is amazing. ”
Meanwhile, Summan, a law professor, said on his blog on Thursday that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not unlimited, but a temporary bloc should be implemented during a decision on whether more permanent residence should be executed, pending the appeal.
If the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, Sumin CBC News told his team “optimistic” caution that he would prevail.
He says he was not surprised by Wednesday. Somon says that during oral arguments two weeks ago, the judges seemed to be completely explained that they did not accept the administration’s claim that “the president has basically the ability to impose any tariff he wants on any country at any time for any reason, as long as he wants, if he feels like it.”
“The seizure of the huge power,” Soman said.
A US Trade Court prevented some of Donald Trump’s tariff, and he ruled that he had overcome his authority, as the president expressed his frustration with the word Wall Street, which mocks his wrong commercial policies.
https://i.cbc.ca/1.7547640.1748567235!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_1180/victor.jpg?im=Resize%3D620
Source link