Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the tariffs imposed by the U.S. government on over 180 countries under the "Liberation Day" initiative and those on China, Canada, and Mexico related to fentanyl issues are illegal, as the President does not have the authority to impose such tariffs unilaterally [1][4][6]. Group 1: Court Ruling Details - The court found that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs on multiple countries [2][6]. - The judges unanimously agreed that the President's claim of having unlimited tariff authority violates constitutional principles [7]. - The court issued a permanent injunction against the tariffs imposed in April and February, including additional tariffs on China following retaliatory measures [7][8]. Group 2: Implications and Reactions - The ruling is seen as a significant victory for those opposing arbitrary tariff imposition by the U.S. government [8]. - The decision does not affect tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, such as those on foreign-produced automobiles and steel and aluminum [8]. - Following the ruling, the White House has quickly appealed, indicating that the Supreme Court may review the case [8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a lawsuit by five small U.S. businesses against the Trump administration's recent tariff increases, arguing that the President lacks the authority to impose such tariffs without Congressional approval [1][2][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - Five small businesses involved in the lawsuit import and distribute various products, including wine, plastics, electronics, fishing gear, and cycling apparel [1]. - The lawsuit is being represented by the nonprofit organization Freedom Judicial Center, which argues that the President's power to impose tariffs is an unprecedented illegal expansion of executive authority [4][6]. Group 2: Legal Arguments - The businesses claim that the President's ability to impose tariffs at will undermines the intent of Congress and represents an overreach of executive power [4][6]. - The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the President has historically been granted the authority to manage foreign affairs and trade, including the imposition of tariffs since 1794 [8]. Group 3: Judicial Proceedings - During the hearings, a conservative judge criticized the government's stance, emphasizing that the court's role is to interpret the law, not to engage in policy discussions [10]. - The judge questioned the rationale behind declaring a national emergency based on long-standing trade deficits, suggesting that such a claim lacks urgency [10][12].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal debate centers around the authority of President Trump to impose tariffs without congressional approval, with small businesses challenging the legality of these tariffs in court [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The U.S. International Trade Court in Manhattan is hearing a case from five small businesses seeking to block recent tariffs imposed by the Trump administration [1]. - The businesses involved include VOS Selections, Plastic Services and Products, MicroKits, FishUSA, and Terry Precision Cycling, all of which import various goods [1]. Group 2: Arguments Presented - The businesses argue that President Trump lacks the authority to impose unlimited tariffs at will, claiming this represents an unprecedented illegal expansion of executive power [2][3]. - The Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration, contends that the President's tariff authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court in past cases [2][4]. Group 3: Judicial Perspectives - Judge Restani expressed skepticism about the government's justification for the tariffs, questioning the rationale behind declaring a national emergency for long-standing trade issues [5][6]. - The debate highlights the tension between executive power and congressional authority in regulating trade, with differing interpretations of what constitutes "regulation" [4][5].