Decisions and Verdicts

Latest story

113 Shares189 Views

Companies Ask Supreme Court to Fast-Track Challenge to Tariffs

by

Two toy manufacturers asked the court to greatly expedite their case, in an unusual request.Two toy manufacturers challenging a major piece of President Trump’s tariffs program asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to expedite their case and rule that Congress had not authorized the levies.The request was unusual for several reasons. Petitions seeking review ordinarily come from the losing side, but the companies had won in front of a district court judge. They then sought to leapfrog the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which would ordinarily rule before the justices considered whether to grant review. And they asked the justices to move very quickly, asking that they schedule arguments in September or October.All of this suggests that the court is unlikely to agree to hear the case at this stage.The manufacturers — Learning Resources and hand2mind — argued that the law Mr. Trump relied on, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not authorize tariffs. Until Mr. Trump acted, their companies’ brief said, “no president had ever invoked I.E.E.P.A. to impose a single tariff or duty on goods in the statute’s nearly 50-year history.”In a separate and broader challenge, the Court of International Trade also ruled against the administration’s tariffs program. A different appeals court, the Federal Circuit, is set to hear arguments in that case next month. Both lower court rulings have been paused, allowing Mr. Trump to press forward with his tariffs.Once the appeals courts have ruled, appeals to the Supreme Court are all but certain, and the justices are quite likely to take up one or both of them.The toy companies seek to use an unusual procedure to bypass the D.C. Circuit, “certiorari before judgment.” The procedure used to be rare, mostly reserved for national crises like President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor or President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry.Before 2019, the court had not used it for 15 years, according to statistics compiled by Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University. Since then, he found, the court has used it at least 19 times. More

More stories

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Court Agrees to Keep Trump Tariffs Intact as Appeal Gets Underway

    by

    The appeals court’s decision delivered an important but interim victory for the Trump administration.A federal appeals court agreed on Tuesday to allow President Trump to maintain many of his tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, extending a pause granted shortly after another panel of judges ruled in late May that the import taxes were illegal.The decision, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, delivered an important but interim victory for the Trump administration, which had warned that any interruption to its steep duties could undercut the president in talks around the world.But the government still must convince the judges that the president appropriately used a set of emergency powers when he put in place the centerpiece of his economic agenda earlier this year. The Trump administration has already signaled it is willing to fight that battle as far as the Supreme Court.The ruling came shortly after negotiators from the United States and China agreed to a framework intended to extend a trade truce between the two superpowers. The Trump administration had warned that those talks and others would have been jeopardized if the appeals court had not granted a fuller stay while arguments proceeded.At the heart of the legal wrangling is Mr. Trump’s novel interpretation of a 1970s law that he used to wage a global trade war on an expansive scale. No president before him had ever used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose tariffs, and the word itself is not even mentioned in the statute.But the law has formed the foundation of Mr. Trump’s campaign to reorient the global economic order. He has invoked its powers to sidestep Congress and impose huge taxes on most global imports, with the goal of raising revenue, bolstering domestic manufacturing and brokering more favorable trade deals with other countries.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    As Courts Call Tariffs Into Question, Trump Again Turns to His Favorite Tool

    by

    The president is set to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum this week, even as the courts are challenging the legitimacy of other levies.The legitimacy of President Trump’s tariffs is being questioned by U.S. courts, but the president is showing no signs of backing off his favorite tool.On Wednesday, the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on foreign steel and aluminum are set to double to 50 percent, a move that the president has said will better protect domestic metal makers.In the coming days, the U.S. government is set to face off with states and businesses that have sued over the president’s tariffs, and both sides will be required to submit more information as judges work toward final decisions on the legality of Mr. Trump’s steepest tariffs.Last Wednesday, the Court of International Trade ruled that some of the steep tariffs that Mr. Trump had imposed were illegal, a significant setback for the president’s agenda.Less than 24 hours later, a separate court temporarily paused that decision. As judges weigh that appeal, the tariffs in question — which include the levies Mr. Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China for what he said was their role in the fentanyl trade, as well as the global tariffs Mr. Trump announced, and then quickly paused, in April — are expected to remain in effect at least until June 9.On Sunday, one of Mr. Trump’s top trade advisers insisted that the president would continue to find ways to hit other countries with tariffs even after the trade court ruled against the defining element of Mr. Trump’s strategy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Tariff Ruling Gives Businesses Hope, but They’re Soon Unmoored Again

    by

    Companies welcomed a court decision striking down President Trump’s tariffs. Then a stay of that ruling left no one breathing easy.Emma Mcilroy’s apparel company, Wildfang, had been working overtime to move its production out of China in the months since President Trump launched his trade war. Finding another factory that could produce jumpsuits and button-downs — while every other U.S. importer was also jockeying for space — was a huge drain on the 11-person staff’s attention.But when Ms. Mcilroy saw on Wednesday night that a federal court had ruled most of Mr. Trump’s tariffs illegal, all of that work paused. Would the tariffs be gone when her next shipment arrived in August, or not?“I have absolutely no idea where it’s going. I am learning in real time how to run my business,” Ms. Mcilroy said Thursday. “Yesterday I would’ve told you, ‘Yes, absolutely, you’re going to see me manufacturing stuff in Vietnam.’ Today I’m not sure.”American businesses are rapidly digesting the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s roller-coaster trade war, which has made it impossible to plan more than a few weeks in advance. It’s particularly hard on industries that place their orders entire seasons ahead of time.The details of Wednesday’s decision seemed likely to bring relief. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the Trump administration had acted illegally in using an emergency powers law to impose 30 percent tariffs on goods from China, 25 percent tariffs on most goods from Mexico and Canada, and 10 percent on everyone else. The court gave the White House 10 days to halt the new duties.Hours later, a higher court stayed the decision.If the initial ruling sticks, it will preclude the return of steeper “reciprocal” tariffs that Mr. Trump paused for 90 days in early April. It might even allow companies that have paid the emergency tariffs over the past several months to claim refunds, already an established process at Customs and Border Protection.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    NLRB Bars Mandatory Anti-Union Meetings After Amazon Draws Complaint

    by

    The ruling, stemming from a complaint against Amazon, bars companies from compelling workers to attend meetings on unionization’s downsides.The National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that companies may not compel workers to attend meetings on the downsides of unionization, a tactic that unions say stifles worker organizing.The decision, the latest in a slew of labor board rulings under the Biden administration aimed at supporting workers’ right to unionize, stems from a complaint over Amazon’s conduct before a successful union election in 2022 at a Staten Island warehouse, the first Amazon warehouse in the nation to unionize. The company held hundreds of meetings there and at another location to discourage workers from supporting a union.The N.L.R.B.’s ban on so-called captive audience meetings is a precedent with potential impact beyond Amazon, though it could be reversed after President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office. Facing a wave of union campaigns since the onset of the pandemic, large employers including Starbucks, Trader Joe’s and REI have held such meetings in what labor regulators and unions have described as an effort to clamp down on organizing. The companies have denied accusations of anti-union campaigns.These meetings, which employees are often required to attend, give employers “near-unfettered freedom to force their message about unionization on workers,” Lauren McFerran, the Democratic chairman of the labor board, said in a statement. She added that they undermine employees’ ability to choose whether they want union representation, a right guaranteed under federal law.“Today’s decision better protects workers’ freedom to make their own choices in exercising their rights,” Ms. McFerran said, “while ensuring that employers can convey their views about unionization in a noncoercive manner.”Amazon intends to appeal the decision, said Mary Kate Paradis, a company spokeswoman, calling the ruling a violation of the First Amendment and adding that it “contradicts the express language” of the National Labor Relations Act. Meetings are often held “because the decision about whether or not to join a union is an important one, and employees deserve to understand the facts so they can make an informed choice,” she said in a statement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Alabama Prison Labor Program Faces Legal Challenges

    by

    In the back of a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Montgomery, Ala., past the corner of Eastern Boulevard and Plantation Way, there is a manufacturing plant run by Ju-Young, a car-part supplier for Hyundai. On a Tuesday in May, about half of the workers there — roughly 20 — were prisoners.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryThey were contracted to the company by the Alabama Department of Corrections as part of a “work-release” day labor program for inmates who, according to the state, have shown enough trustworthiness to work outside prison walls, alongside free citizens.The inmates bused there by the state make up just one crop of the thousands of imprisoned people sent to work for private businesses — who risk disciplinary action if they refuse.Sitting against a chain-link fence under the shade of a tree in the company parking lot, commiserating over small talk and cigarettes with fellow assembly workers, one of the imprisoned men, Carlos Anderson, argued that his predicament was simple. He could work a 40-hour week, at $12 an hour — and keep a small fraction of that after the state charges transportation and laundry fees, and takes a 40 percent cut of pretax wages — or he could face working for nothing at the prison.Under Alabama prison rules, there are thin lines between work incentives, forced labor and “involuntary servitude” — which reforms to the Alabama Constitution in 2022 banned. From the viewpoint of Mr. Anderson and more than a dozen other Alabama inmates interviewed by The New York Times, the ultimate message, in practice, is straightforward: Do this, or else.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Could Be Forced to Treat Drivers as Employees

    by

    Amazon’s delivery system depends on third-party companies. But labor regulators have challenged that model, possibly opening the way for unionization.Vans marked with Amazon’s arrow logo have become ubiquitous on residential streets, a symbol of the nearly instantaneous delivery that has transformed online shopping.But behind the wheel, that image of high-tech efficiency is being overshadowed by drivers’ complaints about working conditions. Recent federal labor rulings could pave the way for unionization in the company’s last-mile delivery network and change how it does business.Hundreds of thousands of drivers who deliver Amazon packages don’t work directly for the e-commerce giant; instead, they’re employed by third-party logistics companies, called delivery service partners. Last year, Amazon ended a contract with a delivery company in Palmdale, Calif., after drivers started organizing with the Teamsters union.A regional director for the National Labor Relations Board in Los Angeles issued the first formal complaint last week targeting the company’s delivery model, arguing in the Palmdale case that Amazon is a joint employer of the drivers and, as such, must bargain with the union.Last month, another N.L.R.B. regional director issued a preliminary finding that Amazon is a joint employer of drivers in Atlanta seeking to unionize with the Teamsters, and that it must be held liable for unlawfully discouraging unionization.Amazon contracts over 3,000 delivery service partners, which determine pay, schedules and work conditions for drivers, the company said.By Christopher Smith For The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Kroger and Albertsons Confront a Skeptical F.T.C. in federal court

    by

    The Federal Trade Commission, which is trying to block Kroger’s plan to acquire Albertsons, said in court that the merger of grocery giants would also hurt workers’ pay and benefits.A trial that could determine whether the two largest supermarket chains in the United States can merge opened in Portland, Ore., on Monday, pitting the grocery giant Kroger against regulators who argue that its takeover of Albertsons would eliminate competition at the expense of consumers and workers.Before Judge Adrienne Nelson of U.S. District Court, the Federal Trade Commission and the supermarket chains laid out their arguments in court for the first time, as union representatives and workers protested the deal on the courthouse steps. Less competition, the agency’s lawyers said, would give Kroger more leverage to raise prices on millions of consumers.The highly anticipated proceedings, set to last three weeks, come as high food prices have become a critical focus in the presidential race. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has backed a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries to combat high grocery costs.Kroger and Albertsons defended the $24.6 billion deal, which would be the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history, saying it would bolster their leverage with suppliers and improve competition against major retailers like Costco, Amazon and Walmart. But the F.T.C. — backed by a chorus of unions, consumer advocates, politicians and independent grocery chains — reiterated its position that the merger would probably result in higher prices for groceries and worse conditions for workers.The deal “would eliminate the competition that shoppers and workers depend on in one fell swoop,” Susan Musser, the F.T.C.’s chief trial counsel, said in her opening statement. “This lawsuit is part of an effort aimed at helping Americans feed their families.”In bringing the case, the F.T.C. has been joined by the attorneys general of eight states, including California and Illinois, as well as the District of Columbia. It’s part of a regulatory push under the Biden administration to rein in corporate consolidation in an array of industries, including airlines, Big Tech, book publishing and pharmaceuticals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 63 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Blocks F.T.C.’s Noncompete Rule

    by

    The Federal Trade Commission was deemed to lack the authority to bar companies from restricting their employees’ ability to go to work for rivals.A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, blocking it from taking effect in September as scheduled.Judge Ada Brown of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the antitrust agency lacked authority to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition, including the noncompete rule, which would have prohibited companies from restricting their employees’ ability to work for rivals.The push to adopt the rule is part of the Biden administration’s effort to crack down on practices that regulators argue are anticompetitive, unfairly constraining workers.Judge Brown had temporarily blocked the ban in July. Her decision on Tuesday renders that injunction permanent, and nationwide in scope.Banning noncompete agreements would increase workers’ earnings by at least $400 billion over the next decade, the F.T.C. has estimated. The agreements affect roughly one in five American workers, or around 30 million people, according to the agency, whose purview includes antitrust and consumer protection issues.Victoria Graham, an F.T.C. spokeswoman, said the agency was disappointed by Judge Brown’s decision and would “keep fighting to stop noncompetes that restrict the economic liberty of hardworking Americans, hamper economic growth, limit innovation and depress wages.”“We are seriously considering a potential appeal, and today’s decision does not prevent the F.T.C. from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions,” Ms. Graham added.A tax firm, Ryan, sued to block the rule just hours after the F.T.C. voted 3 to 2 in April to adopt it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce later joined the case as a plaintiff, as did the Business Roundtable and two Texas business groups.The Chamber of Commerce and other groups have asserted that the F.T.C. lacks constitutional and statutory authority to adopt the rule, with Ryan calling it “arbitrary, capricious and otherwise unlawful” — a position with which Judge Brown agreed. Business groups have also argued that the ban would limit their ability to protect trade secrets and confidential information.In response to Judge Brown’s ruling, G. Brint Ryan, chief executive of Ryan, called the rule “continuing overreach and overregulation” by the federal government, adding that the firm was “happy we were able to successfully stop the overreach in this instance.”But the three Democrats on the five-member F.T.C. maintain that it can legally issue rules defining unfair methods of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the law that created the agency.In a separate case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania declined last month to block the rule. Diverging rulings on the fate of the ban could leave the door open to review by higher courts.“Many businesses will welcome the reprieve, but the uncertainty continues as the fight now moves to the appellate courts,” said Kevin Goldstein, an antitrust partner at Winston & Strawn. More