Commercial court hears the legal contestation

A little -known Federal Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case in which President Donald Trump's tariffs are questioned, listening to arguments and for the first time an important plank of his economic agenda under the legal microscope.

A jury of three judges at the US Court of International Trade will consider whether Trump exceeded steep tariffs to more than 180 countries and areas last month.

If they bump into the plaintiffs, the judges could severely restrict Trump's ability to use import taxes on one side, one of his preferred methods for the bowing of executive power.

The audio of the arguments in the courtroom of Manhattan becomes et livestream from 11 a.m.

The lawsuit was submitted in mid -April by five domestic companies that state that they are dependent on imported goods

In her legal complaint, it is argued that the law on the international emergency management powers – the law of 1977, which was called in early April to impose its worldwide “mutual” tariffs – does not give the president to fulfill these comprehensive obligations.

The law gives the President a number of business powers in a national emergency, including regulation or prohibition impulse, although according to the congress research service it does not expressly mentioned the tariffs.

The “national emergency”, which explained Trump, to justify his use of this law, known as IEPEA, is “an invention of his own imagination”, argued the plaintiffs.

“Trade deficits that have existed for decades without causing economic damage are not an emergency,” says their complaint.

The plaintiffs want the court to block Trump's executive decision on April 2, in which the tariffs are imposed. They also require damages, including the amount of the customs collected by the defendants in accordance with the demanding orders.

The Ministry of Justice argues that Ieepa “clearly” authorizes the president of imposing tariffs.

“Ieepa lawfully delegated the Congress to the presidential authority in order to regulate the import through the imposition of tariffs under certain circumstances,” the lawyers of the doj write in an opposition ceiling.

The Liberty Justice Center, the libertarian non -profit organization that represents the plaintiffs, notes in the lawsuit that the US constitution gives the Congress, not the president, the authorization to collect and collect tax.

Over the years, the congress has issued laws that give the President some wage powers. However, the lawsuit wants the court to explain: “If the congress has unilateral authority to force global tariffs from any amount in its mood, this is an unconstitutional delegation of the legislative authority.”

Trump is a protectionist with a special interest in reducing shops and has long praised the tariffs as an important instrument for negotiation with other countries and collecting federal revenue.

However, at least temporarily, he has declined many of his tariffs in the middle of strongly volatile markets and increasing concerns from business owners and consumers.

One week after the announcement of the mutual tariffs, he lowered the tariffs for most countries with the exception of China to 10%for 90 days.

On Monday, the USA and China agreed to their own 90-day tariff break while the trade negotiations continued.

This is the development of news. Please check for updates.