WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court seemed ready on Wednesday to reject Donald Trump&#39;s historic attempt to end birthright citizenship after a hearing highlighted by the notable presence of the Republican president. The landmark case is a pillar in Trump&#39;s attempts to restrict immigration and his decision to attend oral arguments was unprecedented for a sitting president. Trump left the hearing following the presentation by his solicitor general, John Sauer, and did not remain for the arguments of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Cecillia Wang, who was defending birthright citizenship. &quot;We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow &#39;Birthright&#39; Citizenship!&quot; Trump said in a social media post after returning to the White House. Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term, decreeing that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become US citizens. Lower courts blocked the move, ruling that under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, nearly everyone born on US soil is an American citizen. Sauer told the justices that &quot;unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations&quot; and &quot;demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.&quot; &quot;It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of those who follow the rules,&quot; he said. It also encourages what Sauer called &quot;birth tourism,&quot; in which foreigners come to the United States solely to give birth. The three liberal justices and several conservatives appeared skeptical of the administration&#39;s arguments. Conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority on the court and three justices were appointed by Trump. &#39;It&#39;s the same constitution&#39;Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, asked Sauer how common &quot;birth tourism&quot; is before pointing out that, regardless of the numbers, it would have &quot;no impact on the legal analysis&quot; of the case. &quot;We&#39;re in a new world now,&quot; the solicitor general said, &quot;where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who&#39;s a US citizen.&quot; &quot;Well, it&#39;s a new world. It&#39;s the same constitution,&quot; Roberts replied. The 14th Amendment states that, &quot;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.&quot; It does not apply to those not subject to US jurisdiction -- the children of foreign diplomats, for example -- and Roberts said the government appeared to be seeking to expand the exceptions &quot;to a whole class of illegal aliens,&quot; a move he described as &quot;quirky.&quot; Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative, asked Sauer why he was citing the birthright policies of other nations. &quot;We try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,&quot; Kavanaugh said. &quot;Why should we be thinking about ... other countries? I&#39;m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter.&quot; Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative, said that when the 14th Amendment was passed, in 1868, there was no such thing as &quot;illegal&quot; immigration. &quot;If somebody showed up here in 1868 and established domicile, that was perfectly fine,&quot; Gorsuch said. &quot;And so why wouldn&#39;t we ... come to the conclusion that the fact that someone might be illegal is immaterial?&quot; Decision by JulyWang, the ACLU attorney, told the justices a rejection of birthright citizenship would call into question &quot;the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future.&quot; &quot;Ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they&#39;ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,&quot; Wang said. &quot;That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.&quot; The Trump administration is arguing that the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the 1861-65 Civil War, addresses citizenship rights of former slaves and not the children of undocumented migrants or visitors. Trump&#39;s executive order is premised on the notion that anyone in the United States illegally or on a visa is not &quot;subject to the jurisdiction&quot; of the country and is therefore excluded from automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court rejected such a narrow definition in a landmark 1898 case involving a man who was born in San Francisco to parents from China. If the Supreme Court rejects ending birthright citizenship, it would be the second major loss for Trump this term -- the justices struck down most of his global tariffs in February. A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.

Americas

The US Supreme Court appeared inclined to reject Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, with liberal and conservative justices questioning his arguments and warning that narrowing the 14th Amendment could affect millions of Americans, past, present and future.

US Supreme Court skeptical of Trump bid to end birthright citizenship

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump will watch the US Supreme Court hear a landmark case Wednesday weighing the constitutionality of his contentious bid to end birthright citizenship an extraordinary and possibly unprecedented move for the nation&#39;s highest office. Trump signed an executive order on his return to the White House decreeing that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become US citizens. Lower courts blocked the move as unconstitutional, ruling that under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment nearly everyone born on US soil is an American citizen. &quot;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,&quot; the amendment states. It does not apply to persons who are not subject to US jurisdiction foreign diplomats, for example, and sovereign Native American tribes. &quot;I&#39;m going,&quot; Trump told reporters Tuesday when asked about the Supreme Court hearing. He had attended the investiture ceremony of his first Supreme Court justice nominee, Neil Gorsuch, in 2017, months into Trump&#39;s first term. But it would be an exceptional milestone for a sitting president to be present for oral arguments in a case their administration is actively arguing. The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the 1861-1865 Civil War, addresses the rights to citizenship of former slaves and not the children of undocumented migrants or temporary visitors. Trump&#39;s executive order is premised on the notion that anyone in the United States illegally, or on a visa, is not &quot;subject to the jurisdiction&quot; of the country and therefore excluded from automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court rejected such a narrow definition in an 1898 case involving a man named Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to parents who had come to the United States from China. After a visit to China, Wong Kim Ark was denied reentry into the United States in 1895 under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that he was a US citizen by virtue of being born in the United States. &#39;History and tradition&#39;&nbsp; Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court is likely to reject the challenge to birthright citizenship. &quot;This is a court that has looked to history and tradition as a significant guide in understanding the Constitution,&quot; Schwinn told AFP. &quot;And it would be a little surprising if, after 150 years, we suddenly discovered we were applying the Citizenship Clause all wrong.&quot; Conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority on the high court and three of the justices were appointed by Trump. Trump&#39;s solicitor general, John Sauer, said that in order to be eligible for citizenship &quot;a person must be both born &#39;in the United States&#39; and &#39;subject to the jurisdiction thereof.&#39;&quot; &quot;Children of temporarily present aliens or illegal aliens are not &#39;subject to&#39; the United States&#39; &#39;jurisdiction,&#39;&quot; Sauer said in a brief with the court. &quot;A person is subject to the United States&#39; &#39;jurisdiction&#39; only if he owes sufficient allegiance to, and may claim protection from, the United States.&quot; Automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants is a &quot;powerful incentive for illegal migration,&quot; Sauer said, claiming it encourages &quot;birth tourists.&quot; &#39;Dumb judges and justices&#39;&nbsp; If the Supreme Court does reject ending birthright citizenship, it would be the second major loss for Trump this term the justices struck down most of his global tariffs in February. Trump reacted furiously to that ruling and called birthright citizenship one of the &quot;great scams of our time&quot; on Tuesday, a day after he took to Truth Social to denounce &quot;dumb judges and justices.&quot; The American Civil Liberties Union, which is defending birthright citizenship before the court, said the Trump administration &quot;is asking for nothing less than a remaking of our Nation&#39;s constitutional foundations.&quot; &quot;The government&#39;s baseless arguments if accepted would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.&quot; A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.&nbsp;

Demonstrators holds up an anti-Trump sign outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025.

Trump signed an executive order on his return to the White House decreeing that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become US citizens.

Trump to watch Supreme Court weigh challenge to birthright citizenship 

WASHINGTON:&nbsp;US President Donald Trump on Sunday asserted he had the authority to impose duties despite the US Supreme Court last month striking down his global tariffs. &quot;I have the absolute right to charge TARIFFS in another form, and have already started to do so,&quot; he said in a long post on his Truth Social network.&nbsp; Trump imposed a 10% tariff on US imports via executive order shortly after the Supreme Court ruling. In another post Sunday night on Truth Social, he excoriated federal judge James Boasberg for quashing subpoenas issued as part of a probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over costs linked to the bank&#39;s headquarters renovations. &quot;What Boasberg has done on the &#39;Too Late&#39; Powell case, and many others, has little to do with the Law, and everything to do with Politics,&quot; Trump said. He has repeatedly insulted Powell over the central bank&#39;s policies on setting the economy&#39;s key interest rate. Trump has been vocal about his preferences for lower interest rates, criticizing Powell and attempting to unseat Fed governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations. In January, the US Supreme Court appeared skeptical of Trump&#39;s attempts to fire Cook, with a majority of judges expressing doubts that the administration had shown sufficient cause to remove her. &quot;This completely inept and embarrassing Court was not what the Supreme Court of the United States was set up by our wonderful Founders to be,&quot; Trump said in his social media post.&nbsp; &quot;They are hurting our Country, and will continue to do so.&quot; &quot;All I can do, as President, is call them out for their bad behavior! This statement about the United States Supreme Court will cause me nothing but problems in the future, but I feel it is my obligation to speak the TRUTH.&quot;

'I have the absolute right to charge TARIFFS in another form, and have already started to do so,' he said in a post on his Truth Social network.

Trump says he has 'absolute right' to charge tariffs in another form

HONG KONG:&nbsp;Asian stocks mostly rose and the dollar fell Monday after the US Supreme Court struck down a large part of President Donald Trump&#39;s tariffs policy that had sent shockwaves through the global economy last year. The rally was led by tech firms, which have been at the forefront of regional gains this year as traders turn away from Wall Street to seek out cheaper investments amid concerns about extended valuations. Trump&#39;s trade agenda was dealt a hefty blow Friday when the country&#39;s top court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act used by the White House to impose sweeping levies in April &quot;does not authorize the president to impose tariffs&quot;. Global tariff&nbsp;The president immediately vowed to impose a global tariff of 10% under a separate authority, before raising it to 15% on Saturday. However, the development fanned a fresh round of uncertainty, with calls growing for the government to repay cash taken under the scheme and analysts warning officials would likely pursue other ways of imposing his tolls. &ldquo;The first observation to make is that IEEPA tariffs may be dead, but Trump&#39;s trade regime isn&#39;t,&rdquo; wrote Rodrigo Catril at National Australia Bank. &quot;The administration has several avenues it can pursue, these are likely to be litigated over several years, but there is no sign President Trump is planning to back down. &quot;Another conclusion is that the tariff landscape is now more uncertain than before, uncertainty is not good news for any economy or market. &quot;Unless commonsense prevails, we could be entering a circular process where new tariffs are announced, then potentially overturned, only for new tariffs to be announced, and we do the dance again.&quot; EU-US deal &nbsp;The decision also raised questions about trade deals Washington has signed. European leaders had been due to approve the EU-US deal on Tuesday but the head of the European Parliament&#39;s trade committee said he would call Monday for putting &quot;legislative work on hold until we have a proper legal assessment and clear commitments from the US side&quot;. And Bloomberg reported that Indian trade officials will postpone a trip to the United States aimed at finalizing their interim agreement. Still, Asian investors welcomed the news, which is seen benefiting China and India, with tech firms the best performers. Hong Kong rose more than two percent, with ecommerce titans Alibaba and JD.com surging more than three percent, while Seoul hit another record high thanks to big advances for chipmakers Samsung Electronics and SK hynix. Singapore, Wellington, Taipei and Manila also rose, though Sydney dipped. Tokyo and Shanghai were closed for holidays. The strong start to the week followed gains on Wall Street, where the tariff ruling overshadowed data showing the US economy grew much slower than expected in the fourth quarter of 2025, when it was hit by the extended government shutdown. The uncertainty also weighed on the dollar, which was well down against the yen, pound and euro. Oil prices&nbsp;And oil prices dropped more than one percent amid hopes for an Iran nuclear deal. That has tempered last week&#39;s concerns about a possible US strike on the country after Trump warned &quot;bad things happen&quot;, as he deployed warships, fighter jets and other military hardware to the Middle East. <h2 style="line-height: 2;">Key figures at around 0220 GMT&nbsp;</h2>Hong Kong - Hang Seng Index: UP 2.5% at 27,066.21 Shanghai - Composite: Closed for a holiday Tokyo - Nikkei 225: Closed for a holiday Euro/dollar: UP at $1.1823 from $1.1788&nbsp;on Friday Pound/dollar: UP at $1.3517 from $1.3487 Euro/pound: UP at 87.47 pence from 87.37 pence Dollar/yen: DOWN at 154.15 yen from 155.02 yen West Texas Intermediate: DOWN 1.3% at $65.63 per barrel Brent North Sea Crude: DOWN 1.3% at $70.86 per barrel New York - Dow: UP 0.5% at 49,625.97 (close) London - FTSE 100: UP 0.6% at 10,686.89 (close)

Business

The strong start to the week followed gains on Wall Street, where the tariff ruling overshadowed data showing the US economy grew much slower than expected in the fourth quarter of 2025, when it was hit by the extended government shutdown.

Asian stocks rally after Trump's Supreme Court tariffs blow

Web Desk

ISLAMABAD: India&rsquo;s opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has stepped up his criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the US Supreme Court struck down global tariffs imposed by former US President Donald Trump, triggering a fresh political row over India&rsquo;s interim trade understanding with Washington.&nbsp;In a post on X, Gandhi accused the prime minister of compromising India&rsquo;s national interest. &ldquo;PM Modi&rsquo;s betrayal now stands exposed,&rdquo; he wrote, adding that the premier &ldquo;<a href="https://www.pakistantv.com/article/congress-criticizes-modi-over-us-tariff-conditionality-on-russian-oil" target="_blank" style="color:#0073e6;" rel="noopener noreferrer">can&rsquo;t renegotiate</a>&rdquo; and would &ldquo;surrender again.&rdquo;<div class="fr-embed"><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 100%; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 320px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfdGltZWxpbmVfbGlzdCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOltdLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2ZvbGxvd2VyX2NvdW50X3N1bnNldCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOnRydWUsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdHdlZXRfZWRpdF9iYWNrZW5kIjp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6Im9uIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH0sInRmd19yZWZzcmNfc2Vzc2lvbiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfZm9zbnJfc29mdF9pbnRlcnZlbnRpb25zX2VuYWJsZWQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib24iLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X21peGVkX21lZGlhXzE1ODk3Ijp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6InRyZWF0bWVudCIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3Nob3dfYmlyZHdhdGNoX3Bpdm90c19lbmFibGVkIjp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6Im9uIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH0sInRmd19kdXBsaWNhdGVfc2NyaWJlc190b19zZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdXNlX3Byb2ZpbGVfaW1hZ2Vfc2hhcGVfZW5hYmxlZCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdmlkZW9faGxzX2R5bmFtaWNfbWFuaWZlc3RzXzE1MDgyIjp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6InRydWVfYml0cmF0ZSIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfbGVnYWN5X3RpbWVsaW5lX3N1bnNldCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOnRydWUsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdHdlZXRfZWRpdF9mcm9udGVuZCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9fQ%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=2025074652406841686&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fmain.d1wrm1qseko1cp.amplifyapp.com%2Farticles%2F&sessionId=ceba81b994fe79e6c41b6814b5f454752c7bc856&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px"></iframe></div></div>The remarks followed a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pakistantv.com/article/trump-vows-10-global-tariff-after-stinging-court-rebuke" target="_blank" style="color:#0073e6;" rel="noopener noreferrer">6-3 ruling by the US Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;that the Trump administration had exceeded its authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose sweeping import tariffs.&nbsp;The court held that the law did not permit such broad trade measures.&nbsp;Reacting to the verdict, Trump called it a &ldquo;terrible decision&rdquo; and announced plans to introduce a 10%&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pakistantv.com/article/indian-garment-exporters-reel-under-us-tariffs" target="_blank" style="color:#0073e6;" rel="noopener noreferrer">global tariff</a>&nbsp;under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments issues. The controversy has sparked sharp reactions from India&rsquo;s opposition. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge questioned why the Modi government had moved ahead with what he described as a &ldquo;trap deal&rdquo; before the US court&rsquo;s ruling.<iframe id="twitter-widget-2" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 392px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=2025088486391644220&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fmain.d1wrm1qseko1cp.amplifyapp.com%2Farticles%2F&sessionId=ceba81b994fe79e6c41b6814b5f454752c7bc856&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px"></iframe><div class="fr-embed"> </div>He alleged that the joint trade statement included major concessions, including zero tariffs on several American exports and large-scale imports of US goods. Congress leader Dr Shama Mohamed also cited remarks attributed to Trump, quoting him as saying: &ldquo;We made a deal with India, it&rsquo;s a fair deal now, we are not paying tariffs and they are paying tariffs.&rdquo;<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 100%; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 665px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=2025065394600579308&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fmain.d1wrm1qseko1cp.amplifyapp.com%2Farticles%2F&sessionId=ceba81b994fe79e6c41b6814b5f454752c7bc856&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px"></iframe></div>In her post on X, she echoed Gandhi&rsquo;s criticism, alleging that the deal benefits the United States at India&rsquo;s expense.&nbsp;She also questioned whether the government was aware of the pending case before the US Supreme Court and suggested that the agreement may have been concluded under pressure.&nbsp;The Modi government has yet to issue a response to the opposition&rsquo;s latest allegations.

India

Rahul Gandhi accuses the prime minister of compromising India’s national interest; says Modi 'can’t renegotiate' and will 'surrender again.'

Indian opposition leader says 'Modi will surrender again' after US tariff ruling

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump imposed Friday an additional 10 percent tariff on imports into the United States after the Supreme Court struck down many of his sweeping and often arbitrary duties, delivering a stinging rebuke on his signature economic policy. Trump signed the tariff order in the Oval Office&mdash;saying on social media it was &quot;effective almost immediately&quot;&mdash;after spending the past year imposing various rates to cajole and punish countries, both friend and foe. The new duty is slated to take effect February 24 for 150 days, with exemptions remaining for sectors that are under separate probes, including pharma, and goods entering the US under the US-Mexico-Canada agreement, according to a White House factsheet. The conservative-majority&nbsp;high court ruled six to three Friday that a 1977 law Trump has relied on to slap sudden rates on individual countries, upending global trade, &quot;does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.&quot; Trump, who had nominated two of the justices who repudiated him, responded furiously, alleging without any evidence that the court was influenced by foreign interests. &quot;I&#39;m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what&#39;s right for our country,&quot; Trump told reporters. &quot;In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past,&quot; Trump said, insisting that the ruling left him &quot;more powerful.&quot; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, addressing the Economic Club of Dallas, said the alternative method &quot;will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.&quot; Major setbackThe ruling did not impact sector-specific duties Trump separately imposed on steel, aluminum, and various other goods. Government probes still underway could lead to additional sectoral tariffs. Still, it marked Trump&#39;s biggest defeat at the Supreme Court since returning to the White House 13 months ago. The court has generally expanded his power. In a controversial decision before the 2024 election it ruled in Trump v. United States that he was immune from prosecution for &quot;official acts&quot; during his first term, when he refused to accept defeat. The justices ruled Friday that &quot;had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs&quot; through the 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, &quot;it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.&quot; &quot;IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,&quot; Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion. Wall Street saw share prices rise modestly after the decision, which had been expected. Business groups largely cheered the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying this &quot;provides much-needed certainty&quot; for companies. Doubts on refundsThe Trump administration in court arguments said companies would receive refunds if the tariffs were deemed unlawful. But the ruling did not address the issue. Trump said he expected years of litigation on whether to provide refunds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the one Trump nominee to side with him, noted the refund process could be a &quot;mess.&quot; The University of Pennsylvania&#39;s Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that the court decision on tariffs would generate up to $175 billion in refunds. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, said Americans deserved refunds from the &quot;illegal cash grab.&quot;&quot;Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately&mdash;with interest. Cough up!&quot; But Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, cautioned that there remained &quot;no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid.&quot; The Budget Lab at Yale University estimates consumers face an average effective tariff rate of 9.1 percent with Friday&#39;s decision, down from 16.9 percent. The rate &quot;remains the highest since 1946,&quot; excluding 2025, it said. Close US trading partners, including the European Union and Britain, said they were studying the decision. Trump, in response to a question, suggested trade deals negotiated with individual countries would remain in place, specifically mentioning India. Canada, which has faced repeated tariff threats as Trump questioned the sovereignty of the northern neighbor, said the Supreme Court showed the levies were &quot;unjustified,&quot; but the country braced for more turbulence. &quot;Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,&quot; said Candace Laing, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

US President Donald Trump vows a 10% global tariff after the US Supreme Court struck down his emergency tariff policy, triggering political backlash and uncertainty over trade and refunds

Trump vows 10% global tariff after stinging court rebuke

WASHINGTON: A majority of US Supreme Court justices appeared deeply skeptical of the legality behind a swath of Donald Trump&#39;s tariffs as they heard a landmark case Wednesday that could uphold &mdash; or upend &mdash; the president&#39;s economic agenda.&nbsp;Billions of dollars in customs revenue and a key lever in Trump&#39;s trade wars are at stake as the conservative-dominated panel again grappled with the Republicans&#39; attempts to expand presidential powers.&nbsp;The high court&#39;s nine justices are considering Trump&#39;s use of emergency powers to impose &quot;reciprocal&quot; tariffs on nearly every US trade partner, as well as levies targeting Mexico, Canada, and China over their alleged roles in illicit drug flows.&nbsp;In a hearing lasting more than two-and-a-half hours, several conservative justices, along with the three liberals, questioned whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that Trump invoked confers the authority to impose tariffs.&nbsp;&quot;The statute doesn&#39;t use the word tariffs,&quot; said Chief Justice John Roberts, and imposing tariffs is equivalent to taxation, which has always been a &quot;core power of Congress.&quot;&nbsp;The justices sought to clarify whether Congress must provide explicit authorization for policies with significant economic or political consequences.&nbsp;Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said this did not apply given the president&#39;s inherent, broad range of authorities.&nbsp;&quot;President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe,&quot; Sauer said.&nbsp;Sauer sought to frame the issue as one involving the power to regulate foreign commerce &mdash; including the ability to impose tariffs &mdash;rather than the power to tax.&nbsp;Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, noted that the power to impose taxes is a &quot;congressional power, not a presidential power.&quot;&nbsp;&quot;You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that&#39;s exactly what they are,&quot; Sotomayor said.&nbsp;Simply implausibleJustice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, questioned whether Congress could reclaim powers once it delegates them to the presidency, suggesting that &quot;as a practical matter in the real world, it can never get that power back.&quot;&nbsp;Neal Katyal, representing small businesses challenging Trump&#39;s tariffs, charged that it was &quot;simply implausible&quot; that in enacting IEEPA, Congress &quot;handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process.&quot;&nbsp;He contended that the word &quot;regulate&quot; has also not been used to impose taxes.&nbsp;But there were questions, too, about refunds if Trump&#39;s tariffs were overturned, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett saying it could be &quot;a mess.&quot;&nbsp;The court&#39;s decision, which could take months to arrive, does not concern sector-specific tariffs Trump separately imposed, including on steel, aluminum, and automobiles.&nbsp;Trump has raised the average effective tariff rate to its highest level since the 1930s and has repeatedly warned of calamity if his duties are overturned.&nbsp;A lower court ruled in May that he had exceeded his authority, with the case ultimately making its way to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;Trump did not attend Wednesday&#39;s hearing, but several top officials did, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.&nbsp;&quot;In recent years, the court has been reluctant to overrule presidential decisions of this magnitude,&quot; ING analysts said.&nbsp;But the outcome is hard to predict, they added, as &quot;upholding Trump&#39;s tariffs would shift the balance of power from Congress to the President.&quot;&nbsp;Josh Lipsky of the Atlantic Council noted that even as justices were skeptical, they appeared concerned about fallout from overruling the tariffs.&nbsp;&quot;How do the refunds work?&quot; Lipsky asked. &quot;What does this mean for the president&#39;s foreign policy ability to negotiate deals?&quot;&nbsp;Although Trump&#39;s tariffs have not sparked widespread inflation, companies say they bear the brunt of higher import costs.&nbsp;Lawyers noted that if the top court finds Trump&#39;s global tariffs illegal, the government can tap other laws to temporarily impose up to 15% duties while pursuing pathways for more lasting levies.&nbsp;Countries that have already struck deals with Trump may therefore prefer not to reopen negotiations.

Billions of dollars in customs revenue and a key lever in Trump's trade wars are at stake as the conservative-dominated panel again grappled with the Republican's attempts to expand presidential powers.

US Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump tariff legality

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration on Friday to freeze for now more than $4 billion in foreign assistance appropriated by Congress. The conservative-dominated court said upholding the president&#39;s authority to conduct foreign affairs appears to &quot;outweigh the potential harm&quot; faced by the intended recipients of the aid money. The court said its emergency order was not a final determination on the merits of the case, but it allows for a temporary freeze on disbursement of the funds while the case continues in lower courts. Stakes are &lsquo;high&rsquo;The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan saying the stakes in the case are &quot;high.&quot; &quot;At issue is the allocation of power between the Executive and Congress over the expenditure of public monies,&quot; Kagan said. But Friday&#39;s emergency order was issued with &quot;scant briefing, no oral argument, and no opportunity to deliberate in conference,&quot; she added. The effect of the decision, Kagan said, &quot;is to allow the Executive to cease obligating $4 billion in funds that Congress appropriated for foreign aid, and that will now never reach its intended recipients. &quot;Because that result conflicts with the separation of powers, I respectfully dissent,&quot; she said. Federal spending&nbsp;President Donald Trump, since taking office in January, has sought to exert greater control over federal spending and tasked Elon Musk, the world&#39;s richest person, with downsizing swaths of the US government. Among the chief targets was USAID, the primary organization for distributing US humanitarian aid around the world, with health and emergency programs in some 120 countries.

The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to temporarily freeze over $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress, prioritizing executive foreign affairs power. The decision was opposed by liberal justices.

Articles tagged with "US Supreme Court"