The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Trump’s definitions in November

The United States Supreme Court has approved the report of the Sharia of the comprehensive global definitions in Donald Trump, where a major test was held for one of the narrowest assurances of the Republican President of the Executive Authority, which was essential in his economic and commercial agenda.

Judges took over the appeal of the Ministry of Justice from the judgment of the lower court that Trump exceeded his authority to impose most customs duties under a federal law designated for emergency cases. The court quickly acted after the administration requested last week to review the case, which was involved in trillion dollars in customs duties during the next decade.

The court, whose property begins for the next nine months on October 6, put the case on a quick track on Tuesday, when the oral arguments scheduling for the first week of November.

Last month, the US Court of Appeal of the Federal Appeals in Washington ruled that Trump exceeded the summons of the 1977 law known as the Economic Forces Act of International Emergency, or IEPA, to impose definitions. However, the definitions are still in effect during the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The court of the Court of Appeal stems from two challenges. One of them was brought by five small companies importing goods, including importing wine and spiritual drinks in New York and retail trading in the field of sporting hunting in Pennsylvania. It was presented by 12 US states, most of which are currently governed by Democrats.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s definitions brought by a family -owned games company.

Trade deficit, drug flow to the United States, which the White House was martyred

These fees are part of a global trade war that Trump incites since his return to the presidency in January, which has strengthened commercial partners, increased fluctuations in financial markets and feeds global economic uncertainty.

Trump made definitions a major tool for foreign policy, using it to re -negotiate commercial deals, extract concessions and exercise political pressure on other countries. Trump The 1977 law summoned in April to impose it Customs tariffs on goods imported from individual countries to address the trade deficit, as well as the separate tariff announced in February as an economic crane on China, Canada and Mexico to reduce trafficking in fentanel and illegal drugs in the United States

The law gives the main authority to deal with an “unusual and unusual threat” amid a national emergency. Historically, it has been used to impose penalties on enemies or freeze their origins. Before Trump, the law was not used to impose definitions.

“The fact of the matter is that President Trump has been legally acted using the customs tariff forces granted by Congress in EBA to deal with national emergency situations and protect our national security and the economy. We look forward to the final victory in this matter with the Supreme Court,” said White House spokesman Kush Disi.

Jeffrey Shawab, a lawyer in a Liberty legal group for justice that represents the competitors of the small business in the Trump tariff, said he is confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that the president has no unilateral tariff authority under this law.

“The Congress, not the president alone, has the constitutional authority to impose definitions,” said Shwab.

Trump’s Ministry of Justice argued that the law allows definitions under emergency provisions that allow the president to “regulate” imports.

He said that depriving Trump’s introductory power “would expose our nation to a revenge trade without effective defenses and push America to the brink of the economic catastrophe.”

Trump said that if he loses the case, the United States may have to relax on commercial deals, causing “great suffering.”

The non -party Congress budget office in August reported that the increasing duties on imports from foreign countries can reduce the US national deficit by $ 4 trillion over the next decade, although many economic analysts say that American consumers and will be negatively affected by high prices.

At least 8 lawsuits for definitions

The American constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and definitions, and any mandate from that authority must be explicit and limited, according to lawsuits.

At least eight claims of Trump’s tariff policies, including those presented by California.

Tim Braretbell, an expert in the International Trade Law at the Wiley Ryan Law Office, said that a handful of trade law only has gone to the Supreme Court, “so it shows only the great importance of this issue throughout the American economy, and the global economy is truly.”