appeals

The sentence handed to the far-right politician last month has become a major issue in Brazil-US relations.

Lawyers for Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro have filed an appeal against his 27-year prison sentence handed down last month for a botched military coup after his 2022 election loss.

The 85-page motion filed with the Supreme Court on Monday sought a review of parts of Bolsonaro’s conviction, including his sentence.

United States President Donald Trump has branded the prosecution of his far-right ally a “witch-hunt” and made it a major issue in his country’s relations with Brazil.

Bolsonaro was convicted in September over his bid to prevent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking power following the 2022 vote.

The effort saw crowds storm government buildings a week after Lula’s inauguration, drawing comparisons with the January 6 riot at the US Capitol after Trump lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

The motion filed by Bolsonaro’s lawyers asserted there were “deep injustices” in his conviction and sentence. It did not stipulate how much of a reduction in the sentence was being sought.

Failed coup

Last month, four of five judges on a Supreme Court panel found Bolsonaro guilty of five crimes, including taking part in an armed criminal organisation, trying to violently abolish democracy and organising a coup.

Prosecutors said the plot entailed the assassination of Lula, Vice President Geraldo Alckmin and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and failed only due to a lack of support from military leaders.

Trump cited his displeasure with the prosecution in July as he announced punitive tariffs against Brazil and imposed sanctions against Brazilian officials.

Bolsonaro, who has been under house arrest since August, has denied wrongdoing. Under Brazilian law, he will not be sent to prison until all legal avenues are exhausted.

Judicial revisions possible

Thiago Bottino, a law professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, told the AFP news agency that while it is unusual for the Supreme Court to reverse its rulings, it had made revisions in the past, including to the length of sentences.

Defendants sentenced by the Supreme Court usually need two judges to diverge on a ruling to request an appeal that could significantly change the decision, Reuters reported.

After only one justice dissented, Bolsonaro’s lawyers filed a lesser motion seeking clarification or review of specific parts of the conviction.

If his appeal fails, Bolsonaro, 70, could request to serve his sentence under house arrest, claiming poor health.

He was recently diagnosed with skin cancer and was briefly admitted to hospital last month with other health issues.

Dissenting justice says decision ‘erodes core constitutional principles’ and risks violating freedom of expression.

A United States court of appeals has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can move forward with plans to deploy soldiers to Portland, Oregon, despite the absence of any serious emergency and the objections of state and local officials.

The Monday ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court will allow the Trump administration to send 200 National Guard members to the Democrat-run city.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” when he federalised the state’s National Guard, the three-judge panel stated.

The Trump administration has deployed armed forces to Democrat-run cities across the country, along with aggressive immigration raids in which heavily-armed federal agents wearing masks have pulled people off the streets, demanding that they prove their legal status.

Many US citizens have also been swept up in those raids, during which civil liberty groups have accused immigration agents of operating based on racial profiling, and detaining people without cause.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed disappointment in the court’s decision.

“As the founders emphasised, domestic deployment of troops should be reserved for rare, extreme emergencies as a last resort, but that is far from what the Trump administration is doing in Portland, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC,” Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement.

“The presence of troops in otherwise beautiful vibrant American cities erodes a sense of safety and undermines the core freedoms to assemble and voice dissent.”

The Trump administration has claimed that Portland is “war-ravaged” by protesters, who it says are blocking immigration enforcement measures, despite the absence of any serious crisis conditions in the city. Trump and his allies have often employed vague allegations of emergency conditions as a pretext for wielding extraordinary powers both at home and abroad.

Demonstrators have worn costumes while protesting outside of immigration facilities, sometimes donning dinosaur and frog outfits and blasting music. Federal agents have faced criticism of using excessive force against peaceful demonstrators.

“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” Circuit Judge Susan Graber wrote after casting the dissenting vote on the panel’s ruling.

“But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.”

Oct. 20 (UPI) — A federal appeals court Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard into what he is calling “war-ravaged” Portland.

Monday’s 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reverses a temporary restraining order that blocked the troops, as the administration challenges a lawsuit filed by Oregon and Portland officials. The case is still scheduled for trial on Oct. 29.

Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops after the president called Portland a “war-ravaged” city and said the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices there were “under siege.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut extended two temporary restraining orders, saying the president could not federalize Oregon’s National Guard as, “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” The Trump administration promptly appealed Immergut’s first restraining order to the Ninth Circuit.

“Even if the president may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis to support the statutory requirements,” Monday’s order read.

“Rather than reviewing the president’s determination with great deference, the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances.”

At a hearing on Oct. 9, the 9th Circuit judges heard 20-minute arguments from Oregon attorneys and from the U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department attorneys argued that the troops are needed to protect Portland’s ICE facility following protester clashes with federal agents. Oregon officials claimed the administration was exaggerating.

Portland is one of several cities where the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard. The administration has also deployed troops to Memphis, Tenn., and is working to deploy the National Guard to Chicago to curb crime and protect federal buildings, as ICE agents crack down on illegal immigration.

Trump said earlier this month he would be open to invoking the Insurrection Act, “if necessary” to deploy the National Guard.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — A federal appeals court panel rejected the Trump administration’s request to overturn a lower court order blocking deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday said U.S. President Donald Trump‘s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois “likely” violated the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which outlines specific state power.

“The facts do not justify the president’s actions,” the 18-page ruling read, adding that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

Roughly 200 federalized National Guardsmen currently sit in Illinois via Texas and more than a dozen from California. Trump federalized an additional 300 troops over the objection of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, both Democrats.

Trump has repeatedly described Chicago and other Democratic-governed cities as a “war zone.” Pritzker has said there’s no evidence for Trump’s claims and led the state’s legal actions against the White House with other local and state officials.

During an appearance on Politico’s The Conversation podcast — to be aired Sunday — Pritzker said that Trump has “got the biggest platform in the country, the presidency, and he just says things.” He attacked Trump’s “lies” on crime.

“It’s propaganda, again, not true, but he’ll say it over and over and over again, hoping that people will believe him,” the governor said.

On Thursday, the court panel added the administration was unlikely to prove a rebellion against the U.S. government or that Trump as president could not enforce the law using regular federal forces.

The judges wrote in the decision they saw “insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois.”

“The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority,” it continued.

An hearing is scheduled for Wednesday to determined if the temporary restraining order should be extended, which remains in effect until Thursday.

“To Illinoisans: Stay safe, record what you see and post it, and continue to peacefully protest. Make sure that your community members know their rights in times of crisis,” the two-term Pritzker said Thursday night on Bluesky.

PHILADELPHIA — President Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected its latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.

Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges’ assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had said that the campaign’s error-filled complaint, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together,” and he denied Giuliani the right to amend it for a second time.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called that decision justified. The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents, including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s sister, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.

Friday’s ruling comes four days after Pennsylvania officials certified their vote count for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.

Trump has said he hopes the Supreme Court will intervene in the race as it did in 2000, when its decision to stop the recount in Florida gave the election to Republican George W. Bush. On Nov. 5, as the vote count continued, Trump posted a tweet saying the “U.S. Supreme Court should decide!”

Ever since, Trump and his surrogates have attacked the election as flawed and filed a flurry of lawsuits to try to block the results in six battleground states. But they’ve found little sympathy from judges, nearly all of whom dismissed their complaints about the security of mail-in ballots, which millions of people used to vote from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump perhaps hopes a Supreme Court he helped steer toward a conservative 6-3 majority would be more open to his pleas, especially since the high court upheld Pennsylvania’s decision to accept mail-in ballots through Nov. 6 by only a 4-4 vote last month. Since then, Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett has joined the court.

“The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted after Friday’s ruling. “On to SCOTUS!”

In the case before Brann, the Trump campaign asked to disenfranchise the state’s 6.8 million voters, or at least the 700,000 who voted by mail in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other Democratic-leaning areas.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote in his Nov. 21 ruling. “That has not happened.”

A separate Republican challenge that reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week seeks to stop the state from further certifying any races on the ballot. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is fighting that effort, saying it would prevent the state’s Legislature and congressional delegation from being seated in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, Trump said the Nov. 3 election was still far from over. Yet he offered the clearest signal to date that he would leave the White House peaceably on Jan. 20 if the electoral college formalizes Biden’s win, which appears certain.

“Certainly I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House, taking questions from reporters for the first time since election day.

Yet on Friday, he continued his baseless attacks on Detroit, Atlanta and other Democratic cities with large Black populations, calling them sources of “massive voter fraud.” And he claimed, without evidence, that a Pennsylvania poll watcher had uncovered computer memory drives that “gave Biden 50,000 votes” apiece.

All 50 states must certify their results before the electoral college meets Dec. 14, and any challenge to the results must be resolved by Dec. 8. Biden won both the electoral college and popular vote by wide margins.

Oct. 5 (UPI) — The Justice Department has appealed a ruling by a lower court judge blocking the mobilization of 200 National Guard troops to Portland.

A judge on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to stop its mobilization of the soldiers to protect the ICE building and officers in the city. There have been nightly protests since the troops were ordered to patrol.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on the case.

Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsome called the Trump administration’s move to send National Guard troops to Portland an abuse of law and power.

“The Trump administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words – ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.

Hundreds of protestors marched at the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement office Saturday, the latest in a series of demonstrations in the city since the Trump administration announced it would deploy the troops.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., criticized President Donald Trump in a social media post referring to the court’s order to block the deployment that said Trump’s “determination is simply untethered from the facts.”

A White House spokesperson said that Trump “exercised his authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.”

Sept. 15 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump‘s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, handing the American president another legal defeat in his effort to gain influence over the independent monetary policy-setting agency.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 emergency ruling Monday, ahead of the central bank’s start of monetary policy meetings on Tuesday.

The Trump administration had asked the appeals court to allow the president to fire Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve Board, ahead of the meeting, but the court rejected his request, finding the administration had denied her due process protections.

“The government does not dispute that it failed to provide Cook even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed,” Judges Bradley Garcia and Michelle Childs, both President Joe Biden appointees, wrote in the ruling.

“Granting the government’s request for relief when Cook has received no meaningful process would contravene that principle.”

The president only has the power to remove someone from the independent bipartisan monetary-setting agency for cause.

Trump moved to fire Cook late last month on allegations of mortgage fraud, prompting Democrats to accuse the president of conducting a power grab.

Cook challenged her removal in court, and won reinstatement. The district found that her firing likely violated the so-called for cause provision of the Federal Reserve Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The appeals court majority on Monday agreed with the district court, stating its ruling “is correct.”

“Cook has been serving in her position continuously despite the President’s purported termination. Granting the government’s request for emergency relief would thus upend, not preserve, the status quo,” the court ruled.

“Given these unique circumstances, and Cook’s strong likelihood of success on at least her due process claim, the government’s request for relief is rightly denied.”

In dissent, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, sided with the president, saying it was likely to prevail on its claims that it has cause for Cook’s removal.

Trump fired Cook as he was applying pressure on her boss, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, to lower interest rates, which he has been seeking for months.

Twice since Aug. 15, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, a Powell critic, sent criminal referrals for Cook to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing Cook of mortgage fraud, alleging she listed properties she owns inconsistently on different forms. The allegations go back to before she was on the board.

No charges have actually been filed.

Trump points to the mortgage fraud allegations as cause for her removal. Democrats have backed Cook in the fight. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been among the most vocal and has described Trump’s attempt to remove Cook an “illegal authoritarian power grab.”

“The courts keep rejecting Donald Trump’s illegal attempt to take over the Fed so he can scapegoat away his failure to lower costs for American families,” Warren said Monday night on X following the ruling.

“If the courts — including the Supreme Court — continue to uphold the law, Lisa Cook will keep her seat as a Fed governor.”

The ruling comes as Senate Republicans on Monday voted to confirm White House economic adviser Stephen Miran to join the Federal Reserve Board, despite Democrats voicing criticism over a White House advisor being a part of the independent agency.

Ten days after a Russian man was mysteriously killed amid a crowd of tens of thousands at the Burning Man festival, Russian media is reporting that the man’s father has asked President Donald Trump to have the FBI investigate.

Vadim Kruglov, 37, had been living in Washington state and, according to friends’ Instagram accounts, was making his first pilgrimage to Burning Man. He was killed sometime between 8 and 9:30 pm on the night of August 30, his body found “in a pool of blood” around the time the giant wooden effigy of a man was lit on fire.

The Pershing County Sheriff’s Department, which has jurisdiction over the Black Rock Desert where the annual event takes place, is leading the homicide investigation but has made no public comments about what might have happened. The agency has issued public appeals for information about “any person who would commit such a heinous crime against another human being.”

The agency has also announced that Kruglov’s family has been formally notified of his death, and that “our sincerest condolences from the Pershing County Sheriff’s Office go out to Vadim Kruglov’s family for their tragic loss.”

The sheriff’s department declined to comment on reports of the father’s appeal, or his criticisms of the pace of the investigation.

The Moscow Times reported Thursday that the pro-Kremlin tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda published a video from Kruglov’s father Thursday. In it, the father, Igor Kruglov bemoaned that “ten days have passed” and yet the investigation is “being conducted by one local sheriff.”

“Evil must be punished,” the father continues, “therefore, I appeal to you, dear Mr. President, and ask you to order the FBI to immediately begin investigating the murder of my son.”

Kruglov’s friends have been pushing a similar message to their tens of thousands of Instagram followers.

One post claimed that Kruglov died “from a professional knife strike to the neck —a single fatal blow. This happened in a place where more than 80,000 people from all over the world were gathered.” The Pershing County sheriff’s office declined to comment on the manner in which Kruglov was killed or say whether the friend’s post was accurate.

The Instagram post contained several photographs of Kruglov enjoying himself at the festival.

“A young and talented man, who made a big contribution to this world, has been killed,” the friend wrote. “And the person who did this is still walking free.” The post added: “We strongly believe a federal investigation is needed.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Wednesday appealed a ruling blocking him from firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook as he seeks more control over the traditionally independent board.

The notice of appeal came hours after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb handed down the ruling. The White House has insisted Trump, a Republican, has the right to fire Cook over over allegations raised by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she bought before she joined the Fed.

The case could soon reach the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has allowed Trump to fire several board members of other independent agencies but has suggested that power has limitations at the Federal Reserve.

Cook’s lawyers have argued that firing her was unlawful because presidents can only fire Fed governors for cause, which has typically meant poor job performance or misconduct. The judge found the president’s removal power is limited to actions taken during a governor’s time in office.

Cook is accused of saying that both her properties, in Michigan and Georgia, were primary residences, which could have resulted in lower down payments and mortgage rates. Her lawsuit denied the allegations without providing details. Her attorneys said she should have gotten a chance to respond to them before getting fired.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting the short-term interest rate the Fed controls more quickly. If Trump can replace Cook, he may be able to gain a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s governing board.

No president has sought to fire a Fed governor before. Economists prefer independent central banks because they can do unpopular things like lifting interest rates to combat inflation more easily than elected officials can.

Cook is set to participate in a Fed meeting next week. The meeting is expected to reduce its key short-term rate by a quarter-point to between 4% and 4.25%.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — A federal appeals court Thursday overturned a judge’s order to shut down Florida’s immigration detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” by Department of Homeland Security officials.

The opinion issued by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to wind down operations at the South Florida Detention Facility at Cypress National Preserve in Ochopee.

Environmental groups led by Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Miccosukee Tribe sued over the construction of the facility in May, saying the government didn’t perform a required environmental review first. They cited a federal law called the National Environmental Policy Act, which says the government must conduct such reviews before construction.

In a 2-1 opinion, the Atlanta-based appellate court said the construction of the facility can’t be challenged under NEPA because the state of Florida runs the prison, not the federal government.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis appealed the lower court’s August order based on these grounds. He praised the decision in a post on X accusing Williams of being a “leftist judge.”

“The mission continues at Alligator Alcatraz,” he wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security called it a “huge victory.”

“Today’s order is a win for the American people, the rule of law and common sense,” the department posted on X.

Friends of the Everglades issued a statement on Facebook saying environmental groups intend to continue “fighting” the case.

“While disappointing, we never expected ultimate success to be easy,” said Eve Samples, executive director of the group. “We’re hopeful the preliminary injunction will be affirmed when it’s reviewed on its merits during the appeal.”

The South Florida Detention Facility was the first of multiple prisons opened by the Trump administration in recent months as part of the president’s pledge to mass deport immigrants. Since “Alligator Alcatraz’s” opening in July, the DHS has opened or announced a number of other facilities with alliterative nicknames, including the “Speedway Slammer” at the Miami Correctional Center in Indiana; the “Cornhusker Clink” at the Work Ethic Camp in McCook, Neb.;, the “Deportation Depot” at the Baker Correctional Institution in north Florida; and the “Louisiana Lockup” at Angola Prison.

Immigrants’ rights groups have taken issue with the federal-state partnerships to open large-scale detention facilities and the “political spectacle” associated with the nicknames.

“The new agreements mark a new chapter in the level and scale of cooperation” between federal and state governments on immigration enforcement, the Marshall Project said in a statement in August.

The organization accused the DHS of preventing detainees from meeting confidentially with lawyers at the South Florida Detention Facility. The Marshall Project also alleged the conditions were filthy at the facility and detainees were treated inhumanely, both of which the Trump administration denied.

The DHS said Thursday that the legal challenge to the construction of the facility was about immigration policy, not the environment.

“This lawsuit was never about the environmental impacts of turning a developed airport into a detention facility. It has and will always be about open-borders activists and judges trying to keep law enforcement from removing dangerous criminal aliens from our communities, full stop.”

Much of the affected region has become mostly inaccessible to the UN and aid groups, with Doctors Without Borders describing the area as a ‘black hole’ in Sudan’s humanitarian response. 

Sudan has appealed for international aid after a landslide destroyed an entire village in the western Darfur region, killing more than 1,000 people in one of the deadliest natural disasters in recent history in the country beset by a brutal civil war.

The village of Tarasin was “completely levelled to the ground,” the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A), the rebel group that controls the area, said as it appealed to the United Nations and international aid groups for help to recover the bodies on Tuesday.

The tragedy happened on Sunday in the village, located in Central Darfur’s Marrah Mountains, after days of heavy rainfall.

“Initial information indicates the death of all village residents, estimated to be more than 1,000 people,” the rebel group said in a statement. “Only one person survived,” it added.

The ruling Sovereign Council in Khartoum said it mourned “the death of hundreds of innocent residents” in the Marrah Mountains landslide. In a statement, it said “all possible capabilities” have been mobilised to support the area.

Luca Renda, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Sudan, said he was “deeply saddened” by the reported landslide, adding that the UN and its partners were mobilising to support affected communities at the scene.

A local emergency network, which has been providing support to communities across Sudan during the war, said its teams recovered the bodies of at least nine people on Tuesday. Search teams were facing challenges to reach the area because of bad weather and a lack of resources, it added.

Mohamed Abdel-Rahman al-Nair, a SLM/A spokesman, told The Associated Press news agency that the village where the landslide took place is remote and accessible only by foot or donkeys.

Tarasin is located in the central Marrah Mountains, a volcanic area with a height of more than 3,000 metres (9,840 feet) at its summit. A World Heritage Site, the mountain chain is known for its lower temperatures and higher rainfall than surrounding areas, according to UNICEF. It is located more than 900 kilometres (560 miles) west of the capital, Khartoum.

Sunday’s landslide was one of the deadliest natural disasters in Sudan’s recent history. Hundreds of people die every year in seasonal rains that run from July to October. Last year’s heavy rainfall caused the collapse of a dam in the eastern Red Sea State, killing at least 30 people, according to the UN.

News of the disaster came as Sudan’s continuing war – now in its third year – plunges the country further into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, with famine already declared in parts of Darfur.

People fleeing clashes between the government-aligned Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in North Darfur state had sought shelter in the Marra Mountains, and food and medication were in short supply, the Reuters news agency reported.

Much of the region has become mostly inaccessible for the UN and aid groups, with Doctors Without Borders (known by its French acronym MSF) describing the area as a “black hole” in Sudan’s humanitarian response.

The International Organization for Migration on Tuesday called for safe access and the scaling-up of support to the area.

Factions of the SLM/A have pledged to fight alongside the SAF against the RSF.

Fighting has escalated in Darfur, especially in el-Fasher, since the army took control of Khartoum from the RSF in March.

El-Fasher has been under RSF siege for more than a year, as the paramilitary force is seeking to capture the strategic city, the last major population centre held by the army in the Darfur region.

The paramilitaries, who lost much of central Sudan, including Khartoum, earlier this year, are attempting to consolidate power in the west and establish a rival government.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has audaciously claimed virtually unlimited power to bypass Congress and impose sweeping taxes on foreign products.

Now a federal appeals court has thrown a roadblock in his path, ruling that he is violating the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Friday that Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to justify imposing sweeping import taxes on almost every country.

The ruling largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York. But the 7-4 appeals court decision tossed out a part of that ruling that would have overturned the tariffs immediately, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling was a big setback for Trump, whose trade policies have rocked financial markets, paralyzed businesses with uncertainty and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

Which tariffs did the court knock down?

The court’s decision centers on the tariffs — export taxes — Trump imposed in April on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.

Trump on April 2 — “Liberation Day,” he called it — imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else.

The president later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to negotiate trade agreements with the United States — and reduce their barriers to American exports. Some of them did — including the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union — and agreed to lopsided deals with Trump to avoid even bigger tariffs.

Those that didn’t knuckle under — or otherwise incurred Trump’s wrath — got hit harder this month. Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff, for instance, and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump also kept the baseline tariffs in place.

Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, Trump justified the taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, by declaring the United States’ long-standing trade deficits “a national emergency.”

In February, he’d invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs into the U.S. amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that Beijing used unfair practices to give its technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Why did the court rule against the president?

The administration had argued that courts had approved President Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in the economic chaos that followed his decision to end a policy that linked the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in the IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s April 2 tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

On Friday, the federal appeals court wrote in its 7-4 ruling that “it seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

A dissent from the judges who disagreed with Friday’s ruling clears a possible legal path for Trump, concluding that the 1977 law allowing for emergency actions “is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Supreme Court’s decisions,” which have allowed Congress to grant some tariff authorities to the president.

So where does this leave Trump’s trade agenda?

The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

It could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The president promptly said he would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote on his social media platform.

Trump does have alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act.

For instance, in its decision in May, the trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.

The administration could also invoke levies under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as it did with tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot be imposed merely at the president’s own discretion.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has vacated a ruling that a Texas law giving police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday vacated a ruling by a three-judge panel, and now the full court will consider whether the law can take effect.

The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 4 in 2023, but a federal judge in Texas ruled the law unconstitutional. Texas appealed that ruling.

Under the proposed law, state law enforcement officers could arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, detainees could agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country or face a misdemeanor charge of entering the U.S. illegally. Migrants who don’t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a social media post Friday that the court’s decision was a “hopeful sign.”

Aug. 29 (UPI) — A hotel in Epping Forest, England, can keep housing asylum seekers, an appeals court said Friday, overturning a lower court’s injunction.

The Bell Hotel in Epping Forest is housing about 140 migrants who seek asylum in the country, and the local council sought an injunction against them staying there after a 14-year-old girl was sexually assaulted and a man living in the hotel was accused of the attack.

Protests near the hotel turned violent in July when they were hijacked by supporters of the far-right after asylum seeker Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a resident of the hotel, was charged in July with sexual assault against a 14-year-old girl.

Riot police, with helicopter backup, clashed with protesters in residential neighborhoods and at least 34 people were arrested, police officers injured and vehicles damaged.

On Aug. 20, Justice Stephen Eyre granted an injunction that would force the men out of the hotel, which is being funded by the British government. The injunction would have taken effect on Sept. 12.

Justices David Bean, Nicola Davies and Stephen Cobb said, “If an outbreak of protests enhances the case for a planning injunction, this runs the risk of acting as an impetus or incentive for further protests — some of which may be disorderly — around asylum accommodation. At its worst, if even unlawful protests are to be treated as relevant, there is a risk of encouraging further lawlessness. The [lower court] judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”

After the decision, the Home Office Minister Angela Eagle said the housing of asylum-seekers in hotels will end.

“We inherited a chaotic asylum accommodation system costing billions,” The Guardian reported Eagle said. “This government will close all hotels by the end of this parliament, and we appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of [$12 million] a day.”

Kebatu is on remand [in pre-trial detention]. He denies the offenses he is charged with, which were alleged to have taken place just eight days after his arrival in the country, from Ethiopia via France, on a small boat. His trial is set to begin in the coming days.

Mohammed Sharwarq, a Syrian asylum seeker also living at the hotel, is facing seven unrelated charges and authorities have charged several other men over alleged involvement in unrest outside the Bell Hotel.

Lisa Foster, a lawyer representing Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, said they are “pleased” with the ruling.

She added that the owners ask the public to “understand that the Bell Hotel has simply been providing a contracted service that the government requires.”

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States, saying that plaintiffs are likely to win their claim that the Republican administration’s actions were unlawful.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that maintained temporary protected status designations for Venezuelans while they challenge actions by the Trump administration in court.

The 9th Circuit judges found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had no authority to vacate or set aside a prior extension of temporary protected status because the governing statute written by Congress does not permit it.

Then-President Biden’s Democratic administration had extended temporary protected status, commonly known as TPS, for people from Venezuela.

“In enacting the TPS statute, Congress designed a system of temporary status that was predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Clinton, a Democrat, wrote for the panel. The other two judges on the panel were also nominated by Democratic presidents.

In an email, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security blasted the decision as more obstruction from “unelected activist” judges.

“For decades the TPS program has been abused, exploited, and politicized as a de facto amnesty program,” the email read. “While this injunction delays justice and undermines the integrity of our immigration system, Secretary Noem will use every legal option at the Department’s disposal to end this chaos and prioritize the safety of Americans.”

Congress authorized temporary protected status, or TPS, as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the secretary of DHS to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country. The terms are for six, 12 and 18 months.

The appellate judges said the guaranteed time limitations were critical so people could gain employment, find long-term housing and build stability without fear of shifting political winds.

But in ending the protections soon after Trump took office, Noem said conditions in Venezuela had improved and it was not in the U.S. national interest to allow migrants from there to stay on for what is a temporary program. It’s part of a broader move by Trump’s administration to reduce the number of immigrants who are in the country either without legal documentation or through legal temporary programs.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco found in March that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the administration had overstepped its authority in terminating the protections. Chen postponed the terminations, but the Supreme Court reversed him without explanation, which is common in emergency appeals.

It is unclear what effect Friday’s ruling will have on the estimated 350,000 Venezuelans in the group of 600,000 whose protections expired in April. Their lawyers say some have already been fired from jobs, detained in immigration jails, separated from their U.S. citizen children and even deported.

Protections for the remaining 250,000 Venezuelans are set to expire Sept. 10.

“What is really significant now is that the second court unanimously recognized that the trial court got it right,” said Emi MacLean, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California representing plaintiffs.

She added that while the decision might not benefit immediately those people who have already lost their status or are about to lose their status, Friday’s ruling “should provide a path for the administration’s illegal actions related to Venezuela and TPS to finally be undone.”

A court declaration provided by plaintiffs showed the turmoil caused by the Trump administration and Supreme Court decision.

A Washington woman who worked in restaurants was deported in June along with her daughters, 10 years and 15 months old, after ICE officers told her to bring her children to an immigration check-in. The father of the baby, who is a U.S. citizen, remains in the U.S. while the woman tries to figure out what to do.

Also in June, a FedEx employee appeared in uniform at his required immigration check-in only to be detained, the court declaration states. He slept for about two weeks on a floor, terrified he would be sent to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. His wife cannot maintain the household on her earnings.

“I am not a criminal,” he said in the declaration, adding that “immigrants like myself come to the United States to work hard and contribute, and instead our families and lives are being torn apart.”

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. Their country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Attorneys for the U.S. government argued the Homeland Security secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program were not subject to judicial review. They also denied that Noem’s actions were motivated by racial animus.

But the appellate judges said courts clearly had jurisdiction in cases where the actions were unlawful. They declined to address whether Noem was motivated by racial animus.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — An 11-member appeals court on Friday struck down most of President Donald Trump‘s tariffs on foreign goods, declaring they are illegal.

The court held off mandating its decision because of a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social, declared: “The United States of America will win in the end.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump does not have the power to invoke the expansive tariffs on most U.S. trade partners, including a baseline 10% and much higher for nations the president called the “worst offenders.”

The 127-page opinion vacated the lower court’s injunction, blocking the tariffs altogether and directing the court to re-evaluate whether universal relief is appropriate. The chief judge is Kimberly Moore, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

The ruling doesn’t affect tariffs imposed under other laws, such as the Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos.

Tariffs are paid by the importing company at the U.S. ports of entry. The additional cost is often passed on to retailers and, in turn, means higher prices paid by consumers.

In July, the Department of the Treasury brought in more than $29 billion in “customs and excise taxes,” which is mostly from tariffs.

Judges agreed with the three-member Court of International Trade ruling on May 28 that set aside five executive orders that “imposed tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world.” The New York-based court, in a 49-page opinion, said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the “unlimited” power to levy across-the-board tariffs.

The judges’ decision was based on two cases brought by a group of small businesses and 12 Democratic state attorneys general.

They held that “the tariffs were not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Because we agree that IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to ‘regulate’ imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm.”

Four judges dissented.

“We agree with the majority’s decision on jurisdiction and standing and on the need for reconsideration of the remedy if the tariffs are unlawful,” Richard Tranto, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote. “But we disagree with the majority’s conclusion on the issue of the tariffs’ legality. We conclude that plaintiffs have not justified summary judgment in their favor on either statutory or constitutional grounds.”

Trump quickly responded on Truth Social: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”

He added: “At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”

The ruling took aim on Trump’s authority.

“This case involves the extent of the President’s authority under IEEPA to ‘regulate’ importation in response to a national emergency declared by the President,” the judges wrote. “For many years, Congress has carefully constructed tariff schedules which provide for, in great detail, the tariffs to be imposed on particular goods. Since taking office, President Donald J. Trump has declared several national emergencies.”

They said Trump has departed from the “established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade.”

In a separate opinion, the judges paused the ruling from taking effect through Oct. 19 to allow the Trump administration the opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump declared April 2 as “Liberation Day” during a “Make America Wealthy Again” event in the Rose Garden of the White House. The highest tariffs of 50% were placed on sparsely populated Lesotho, France’s Saint Pierre and Miquelon islands. Other countries facing some of the highest tariffs were Cambodia (49%), Laos (48%), Madagascar (47%), Vietnam (46%), and Myanmar (44%).

One week later with U.S. stocks and the bond market reeling, Trump instituted a 90-day pause on all reciprocal tariffs except on China. The 10% baseline that went into effect remained.

Nations then negotiated trade deals, including 15% reciprocal tariffs on European Union nations. Britain, which is not part of the EU, has a 10% tariff on most goods.

A 50% on goods from India took effect on Wednesday.

On July 9, Trump imposed a total 50% tariff in Brazil because of what he called the “disgrace” of how former President Jair Bolsonaro has been treated and an “unfair trade relationship.”

Tariffs are 15% on Japan and South Korea, with 20% on Vietnam, 19% on Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Regarding China, a pause was extended on Aug. 11 for 90 days. Trump had China with tariffs as high as 145%, while China threatened retaliatory tariffs of 125%. During the initial 90-day truce, the United States reduced its China tariffs to 30%, with China dropping its tariffs on U.S. goods to 10%.

China and Mexico have been hit with 25% tariffs.

South Africa was hit with a 30% duty.

A United States appeals court has declared President Donald Trump’s blanket tariff policy illegal, but it stopped short of pausing the wide-ranging import taxes altogether.

On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, largely upheld a decision in May that found Trump had overstepped his authority in imposing universal tariffs on all US trading partners.

Trump had invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the move, claiming that trade deficits with other countries constituted a “national emergency”.

But the appeals court questioned that logic in Friday’s ruling, ruling seven to four against the blanket tariffs.

“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency,” the court wrote.

“But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the appeals court therefore said his tariff policy could remain in place until October 14.

That was a departure from the May ruling, which included an injunction to immediately halt the tariffs from taking effect.

What is this case about?

The initial May decision was rendered by the New York-based US Court of International Trade, a specialised court that looks exclusively at civil actions pertaining to cross-border trade.

That case was one of at least eight challenges against Trump’s sweeping tariff policies.

Trump has long maintained that the US’s trading partners have taken advantage of the world’s largest economy, and he has depicted trade deficits – when the US imports more than it exports – as an existential threat to the economy.

But experts have warned that trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing: They could be a sign of a strong consumer base, or the result of differences in currency values.

Still, on April 2, Trump invoked the IEEPA to impose 10-percent tariffs on all countries, plus individualised “reciprocal” tariffs on specific trading partners.

He called the occasion “Liberation Day“, but critics noted that the global markets responded to the tariff announcements by stumbling downward.

A few days later, as the “reciprocal” tariffs were slated to take effect, the Trump administration announced a pause for nearly every country, save China. In the meantime, Trump and his officials said they would seek to negotiate trade deals with global partners.

A new slate of individualised, country-specific tariffs was unveiled in July in the form of letters Trump posted to his social media account. Many of them took effect on August 1, including a 50-percent tariff on Brazil for its prosecution of a Trump ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Just this week, on August 27, India was also slapped with a 50-percent tariff as a result of its purchase of oil from Russia.

Mexico, Canada and China, meanwhile, have faced Trump’s tariff threats since February, with Trump leveraging the import taxes to ensure compliance with his policies on border security and the drug fentanyl.

What are the arguments?

US presidents do have limited power to issue tariffs in order to protect specific domestic industries, and Trump has exercised that power in the case of imported steel, aluminium and automobile products.

But in general, the US Constitution places the power to issue taxes, including tariffs, under Congress, not the presidency.

Lawsuits like Friday’s have therefore argued that Trump has exceeded his presidential authority in levying blanket tariffs.

The appeals court decision also pointed out that the IEEPA does not give the presidency unchecked power.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the ruling said.

The decision came in response to two lawsuits: one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center, on behalf of five US small businesses, and the other by 12 US states.

Still, on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump appeared defiant, emphasising that his tariffs would remain in place despite the appeals court’s decision.

“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end,” he wrote.

He added that it was his view that tariffs “are the best tool to help our Workers”. He also implied he expected the Supreme Court to back him up in his appeal.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong,” Trump said.

“Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation.”

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but left in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, a ruling that largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

But the 7-4 court did not strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The president vowed to do just that. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” Trump wrote on his social medial platform.

The ruling complicates Trump’s ambitions to upend decades of American trade policy completely on his own. Trump has alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. His tariffs — and the erratic way he’s rolled them out — have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

But he’s also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting one-sided trade deals and to bring tens of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury to help pay for the massive tax cuts he signed into law July 4.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.

“It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump said in a previous post on Truth Social.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.

Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Josh Boak contributed to this story.

NEW YORK — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state’s lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth.

The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York’s mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was “excessive.”

After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million.

The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest.

“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court’s ruling.

Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump’s appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond.

The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court’s fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump’s appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months.

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state’s behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in “lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.” Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday’s decision.

Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was “an innocent man” and the case was a “fraud on me.” He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats.

Trump’s Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president’s civil rights. James’ personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is “the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign.”

Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren’t deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren’t audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid.

Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune.

During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump’s lawyers argued that many of the case’s allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved.

State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers.

The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump’s gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers.

The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president.

On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction.

And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.

He’s also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.

Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.