Amid a flurry of announcements of last-minute deals ahead of Donald Trump’s latest tariff deadline, the underlying legal justification for the US president’s global trade war was the subject of significant doubt before a panel of 11 members of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. The highly anticipated hearing was to consider a lower court ruling finding the Republican president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to circumvent Congress’s power to levy tariffs was, in fact, illegal. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued Trump’s citation of a statute that doesn’t even mention tariffs to launch an unprecedented trade war was a “breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in 200 years.” A majority of the panel, including both Democratic and Republican appointees, expressed varying levels of skepticism with the government’s position. Tariffs, said US Judge Alan David Lourie, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, seemed “to have no friends” in the law. Still, Trump has plenty of room to run if he loses. Any decision will likely take weeks and would almost certainly be stayed in order to give the US Supreme Court time to consider a request for review. The high court, controlled by a 6-3 Republican-appointed supermajority, has over the past several months repeatedly cleared the way for Trump’s agenda. But even if it didn’t this time, he has other legal avenues along which to prosecute a trade war. And of course, there’s always the more extreme option: A Washington Post study of the ongoing constitutional crisis has found the administration is accused of not following a full one-third of all court rulings against it. —David E. Rovella |