Tonight in Your Rights: Trump's tariffs face appellate grilling
A member of the 11-judge panel pointed out that the statute Trump used to justify his tariffs... doesn't mention the word "tariffs."
In tonight’s legal roundup, the newsletter focuses on significant developments involving fights to block Trump’s tariffs, protect Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s right to a fair trial, and preserve Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil’s freedom.
Stay on top of the courts by becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In his unprecedented power grab, Donald Trump became the first president to claim the ability to unilaterally set tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute that spans more than 15,000 words.
Not one of the words in that law is “tariffs.”
A member of an 11-appellate judge panel made that basic observation on Thursday, during what appeared to be a tough reception for Trump’s Department of Justice.
"IEEPA doesn't even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere," U.S. Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna, an Obama appointee, noted during arguments that spanned more than an hour and a half.
In late May, a unanimous three-judge panel from the Court of International Trade found that nothing in the law or Constitution gave Trump “such unbounded authority” to unilaterally impose his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, which the court voided as “unlawful.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused that ruling until the case could be heard on appeal.
Once oral arguments began on Thursday, Trump’s attorneys quickly had a rough reception.
“It’s just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates,” Judge Timothy Dyk, a Clinton appointee, said.
Trump’s tariffs are scheduled to go into effect on Friday.
Read more about the background of the case here.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia case: Kristi Noem put on notice
A federal judge warned the government on Thursday not to try to convict Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the court of public opinion before he has a chance to defend himself at trial.
“Our Constitution requires that Abrego is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury,” U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. ended his order by saying.
But Judge Crenshaw stopped short of rebuking Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who bashed Abrego in a rant earlier this month accusing him of crimes with which he was never charged.
On July 18, two days after Abrego’s last court hearing, Noem told reporters: “He has a lifetime history of trafficking individuals and of taking advantage of minors, soliciting pornography from them, nude photos of them, abusing his wife, abusing other illegals, aliens that were in this country, women that were under his care while he was trafficking them.”
Abrego has not been charged with any of the crimes that Noem listed.
The smuggling offenses that Abrego has been charged with are far less serious than trafficking, the crime of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell, for example.
Calling Abrego a “horrible human being and a monster,” Noem opined: “The evidence is overwhelming.”
Abrego’s lawyer Sean Hecker quoted Noem’s “inflammatory” comments in a motion asking the judge to clarify that rules banning the government from out-of-court statements like that bind her too.
In his ruling, Judge Crenshaw said it’s “not clear” the rules bind Noem, but he suggested that they might. Homeland Security has multiple footprints on Abrego’s case, as an agency partner of the Justice Department’s Joint Task Force Vulcan that brought the case. Abrego’s lead investigator, Homeland Security agent Peter Joseph, testified at both bail hearings.
In his later order, Judge Crenshaw framed his prohibition against pre-trial statements broadly: “All counsel and those working with counsel shall ensure that any proper public communications include that the indictment only contains allegations.”
Read his full ruling here.
Mahmoud Khalil stays free on appeal
Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil can remain free after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s request to suspend his bail pending appeal.
“Mahmoud spent 104 days in detention as punishment for speaking out for Palestinian rights,” Khalil’s attorney Noor Zafar said in a statement. “That is time with his family that he will never get back, but this decision affirms that he will remain free and that the government cannot pursue his removal based on the likely unconstitutional foreign policy charge as his case moves through appeal.”
In Wednesday’s ruling, a three-judge panel scheduled Khalil’s appeal for mid-October.
Question Adam... if Noem, or other government representatives on counsel, choose not to heed Judge Crenshaw's warning/order, what is the possible recourse? Could the case be called a mistrial based on misconduct and Judge Crenshaw dismiss the case without a ruling? Thanks for your thoughts.
Trump cabinet officials like Noem lie about a defendant, who has not been found guilty of anything, and is still allowed to act as a government official? This administration and president lie about EVERYTHING - and the main stream media treats it like another day? These should be screaming headlines. How can they be held accountable? Thanks Adam.