Trump asks the Supreme Court to cancel the judgment of the lower court on the national definitions

The administration asked the US Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear an attempt to keep it followed under the 1977 law designated for emergency cases.

This comes after a court is lower than most of the fees that were essential in the economic and commercial agenda of the Republican President.

The Ministry of Justice has resumed August 29 is a ruling from the Federal Appeal Court that the president has overcome his authority In summoning the law known as the Economic Forces Law for International Emergency, Trump’s priority is a great priority in his second term.

The administration asked the court to follow its review quickly by determining whether to take the case by September 10 and hold the arguments in November. The new term begins on October 6.

“The risks in this case cannot be higher,” Public Prosecutor de John Sawr said in a written file.

“The President and Cabinet officials have decided that the definitions are strengthening unprecedented economic peace and prosperity, and that the denial of the customs tariff authority will expose our nation to the trade of revenge without effective defenses and America’s direction to the brink of the economic disaster,” she added.

Lawyers of small companies that challenge the customs tariff do not oppose the government’s request to obtain a hearing of the Supreme Court. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Shawab of the Freedom Justice Center, said in a statement that they were confident of their travel.

“These illegal definitions cause serious harm to small companies and are at risk. We hope a quick solution to this issue for our customers,” said Shawab.

Fees are part of a Trade war Trump has incited him 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 a leadership tariff from US foreign policy, using political pressure, re -negotiating commercial deals, and extracting concessions from countries that export goods to the United States.

The litigation relates to the recognition of Trump’s use of IEPA to impose what Trump calls “mutual” definitions to address the trade deficit in April, in addition to a separate tariff that was announced in February as an economic crane on China, Canada and Mexico to limit

IEPA gives the president to deal with an “unusual and unusual threat” amid national emergency and is historically used to impose penalties on enemies or freeze their origins. Before Trump, the law was not used to impose definitions.

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

Going now

• The number of the Minister of Public Safety in the documents that was seized during the 2006 terrorist financing probe

• Trump says that the tariff policies may “relax”, if the Supreme Court does not support him

The ruling of the Court of Appeal stems from two challenges, which was brought by five small companies importing goods, including importers of wine and spiritual drinks in New York and a sporting hunting in the state of Pennsylvania. It was presented by 12 American states – Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Min, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont – is governed by most of them are Democrats.

The constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and definitions, and any mandate from that authority must be clear and limited, in accordance with lawsuits.

The US Appeals Court of the Federal Department in Washington, DC, agreed that the president’s authority to organize imports under the law does not include the authority to impose definitions.

“It seems unlikely that Congress, at the age of IEPA, plans to get out of his previous exercise and grant the unlimited president to impose customs tariffs,” said the Court of Appeal in its 7-4 Resolution.

The Court of Appeal also said that the extensive view of the IEPA administration violates the “main questions” doctrine of the Supreme Court, which requires executive sub -measures of enormous economic and political importance by Congress.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessin, in a declaration submitted to the appeal of the Ministry of Justice, urged the Supreme Court to move quickly, stressing that the decision of the Court of Appeal is undermining Trump’s ability to “conduct the real world diplomacy and its ability to protect national security and economy to the United States.”

The New York -based International Commercial Court, which has a specialization in customs and commercial conflicts, was previously controlled against tariff policies in Trump on May 28.

Another court in Washington ruled that IEPA does not allow Trump’s definitions, and that the government also resigned this decision. At least eight claims of Trump’s tariff policies, including those presented by California.

The administration’s appeal is a legal battle on the independence of the Federal Reserve also linked to the Supreme Court, which leads to a possible legal confrontation on the entire economic policy of Trump in the coming months.