Group 1 - The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that prevents former President Trump from dissolving the Department of Education [1]

Group 1 - The U.S. Court of Appeals has temporarily suspended the International Trade Court's ruling that deemed the Trump administration's tariff measures illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1][3] - The International Trade Court ruled that the President lacks the authority to impose comprehensive tariffs on nearly all trading partners without Congressional approval, which is seen as a significant judicial setback for the Trump administration [1][5] - The ruling provides the U.S. government with 10 days to halt the imposition of tariffs, indicating a potential shift in trade policy [1][5] Group 2 - A preliminary injunction has been issued by the District Court in Washington D.C., extending the suspension of the tariff policy for 14 days, but it currently applies only to two toy companies involved in the lawsuit [3][4] - The lawsuits against the tariff policy include at least seven cases, initiated by small businesses and states claiming the Trump administration's actions were unauthorized and lacked legitimate Congressional backing [5]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the Trump administration's tariff policies are illegal, marking a significant judicial setback for the administration and potentially impacting its trade agenda [1][2]. Summary by Sections Court Ruling Details - The ruling specifically addresses lawsuits from five small U.S. businesses and twelve states, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose global tariffs or retaliatory tariffs [1][2]. - The court's decision permanently prohibits the enforcement of the related tariff executive orders, which were enacted against products from Canada, Mexico, and China [1]. Reactions to the Ruling - Legal experts indicate that the ruling means all U.S. importers are exempt from the tariffs involved in the lawsuits, not just the plaintiffs [2]. - The ruling is seen as a comprehensive rejection of key controversial actions taken by the Trump administration during its second term [2]. Government Response - The Trump administration has filed an appeal against the ruling and may continue to pursue the case up to the Supreme Court [3][5]. - The White House argues that the trade deficit constitutes a "national emergency" and that the decision should not be made by unelected judges [3]. Implications for Tariff Policy - Experts believe that the ruling will significantly affect the Trump administration's tariff agenda, especially as judicial constraints limit the effectiveness of tariff measures against trade partners [5]. - The ruling may weaken the administration's negotiating position in ongoing trade discussions, as foreign governments may be less inclined to make concessions [6]. Impact on Trade Negotiations - The court's decision has created uncertainty in U.S. trade policy, potentially leading trade partners to halt further concessions until clearer judicial guidance is provided [6]. - The ruling gives foreign governments new leverage in trade negotiations, complicating the U.S. administration's efforts to achieve its trade objectives [6].