Add source Login
Most Trump tariffs illegal, US court rules

Most Trump tariffs illegal, US court rules

US President Donald Trump earlier this year announced hefty tariffs for many countries in his plan to “Make America Wealthy Again”. Photo: GETTY IMAGES A divided US appeals court has ruled most of Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal, undercutting the Republican president's use of the levies as a key international economic policy tool.

US court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal, but they remain for now

US court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal, but they remain for now

A US appeals court has ruled that many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which have upended global trade, were illegal.  However, it has allowed them to remain in place for now, giving Trump time to take the fight to the Supreme Court.  The 7-4 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s finding that Trump had exceeded his authority in tapping emergency economic powers to impose wide-ranging duties.  But the judges allowed the tariffs to stay in place through mid-October – and Trump swiftly made clear he would put the time to use.  The appeals court “incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end,” he said on his Truth Social platform lashing out at the ruling.  He added that he would fight back “with the help of the United States Supreme Court”.  The decision marks a blow to the President, who has wielded duties as a wide-ranging economic policy tool.  It could also cast doubt over deals Trump has struck with major trading partners such as the European Union, and raised the question of what would happen to the billions of dollars collected by the United States since the tariffs were put in place if the conservative-majority Supreme Court does not back him.  Friday’s case, however, does not deal with sector-specific tariffs that the Trump administration has also imposed on steel, aluminium, autos and other imports.  Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all US trading partners, with a 10% baseline level and higher rates for dozens of economies.  Trump plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, aiming to maintain the tariffs long-term. Photo / Carolyn Van Houten, The Washington Post  He has invoked similar authorities to slap separate tariffs hitting Mexico, Canada and China over the flow of deadly drugs into the United States.  The Court of International Trade had ruled in May that Trump overstepped his authority with across-the-board global levies, blocking most of the duties from taking effect, but the appeals court later put the ruling on hold to consider the case.  Friday’s ruling noted that “the statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax”.  It added that it was not addressing if Trump’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy or deciding whether IEEPA authorises any tariffs at all.  Instead, it sought to resolve the question of whether Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs and those imposed over trafficking were authorised, with the document noting: “We conclude they are not”.  In a supplementary filing just hours before the appeals court released its decision, Trump Cabinet officials argued that ruling the global tariffs illegal and blocking them would hurt US foreign policy and national security.  “Such a ruling would threaten broader US strategic interests at home and abroad, likely lead to retaliation and the unwinding of agreed-upon deals by foreign-trading partners,” wrote commerce secretary Howard Lutnick.  Lutnick added that they could also “derail critical ongoing negotiations” with partners.  Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, meanwhile, warned that suspending the effectiveness of tariffs “would lead to dangerous diplomatic embarrassment”.  Several legal challenges have been filed against the tariffs Trump invoked citing emergencies.  If these tariffs are ultimately ruled illegal, companies could seek reimbursements.  -Beiyi Seow, Agence France-Presse

Tom Phillips sighting captures global attention as police hunt fugitive dad on run with kids

Tom Phillips sighting captures global attention as police hunt fugitive dad on run with kids

The hunt for Tom Phillips and his three kids is capturing the interest of audiences around the world, with news of the fugitive father’s latest sighting going global.  Police yesterday released CCTV footage they believe shows Phillips and one of his kids breaking into the Piopio Superette before escaping on a quad bike early Wednesday – the first public sighting of the missing family since pig hunters filmed all four walking through Marokopa farmland 10 months ago.  Phillips has been on the run with Jayda, Maverick and Ember – now aged 12, 10 and 9 – since disappearing from the family farm in the remote south-west Waikato settlement of Marokopa in December 2021.  Wednesday’s alleged sighting not only dominated headlines across New Zealand, but captured global attention as Australian, British and US media reported on the incident.  Police release CCTV footage believed to show Marokopa man Tom Phillips and one of his children breaking in to a building in Piopio on Wednesday morning. Photo / Supplied  Several major international news organisations, including CNN, CBS, Sky News UK, BBC, The Guardian, ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald alerted their audiences to the latest in the long-running saga.  Police had released CCTV footage “believed to show a fugitive father who has been on the run with his three children in the remote wilderness for nearly four years”, CNN reported.  International media also reported the questions – and concerns – of police.  Detective Senior Sergeant Andy Saunders speaks to media about a potential sighting of fugutive father Tom Phillips - and one of his kids - in CCTV footage of a retail burglary in rural Waikato. Photo / Michael Craig  Police have previously said they believed Phillips had assistance from other people, but were now “considering what this burglary actually means”, the BBC reported of comments made by Detective Senior Sergeant Andy Saunders at a media conference in Hamilton yesterday.  “Does it mean that he’s potentially had a falling out with who’s helping him? Or is he just that brazen and confident that he’s quite happy to come out at night and commit a burglary?”  But the British public broadcasting giant, as with other international media, also noted the key consideration for police.  “At the heart of this are three children who have been away from their home for four years,” Saunders said.  “Their wellbeing is our main focus.”  Cat pictured with her children, from left, Maverick, Ember and Jayda Phillips before all three disappeared with their father Tom Phillips almost four years ago.  Last year, the children’s mum Cat spoke to the Herald about her heartbreak since Jayda, Maverick and Ember were taken.  “It’s like every day [I’m] grieving ... the loss of three childhoods, the loss of innocence, the loss of my babies, they deserve better.”  Tom Phillips has been on the run with his three kids for almost four years.  International publications such as People Magazine similarly zeroed in on the impact of Phillips’ actions on his wider family, repeating the pleas made earlier this month by his sister Rozzi Phillips for her brother to come home.  “Maybe he’s going to see this”, she told Stuff’s Paddy Gower Has Issues show.  “And maybe he’s going to get to see that he can come home, and that we are here for him, and it might just be okay.”  Cherie Howie is an Auckland-based reporter who joined the Herald in 2011. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years and specialises in general news and features.

Mama Hooch rapists’ legal aid tops $1 million, could rise further

Mama Hooch rapists’ legal aid tops $1 million, could rise further

The legal aid bill for Mama Hooch rapist brothers Danny and Roberto Jaz is now more than a million dollars - and the total is likely to increase even further.  Soon after the sex offenders were sentenced in 2023, the Herald revealed they had received more than $896,000 from the country’s legal aid coffers.  Brothers Danny Jaz (left), and Roberto Jaz were sentenced on a raft of charges. Photo / George Heard  Following their High Court appeal in July, the Ministry of Justice confirmed a further $130,895 had been provided to the Australian-born criminals, bringing their total legal aid bill to $1,027,412.  As of this month Danny Jaz has received $561,554.14 in legal aid and Roberto Jaz has received $465,857.63.  Ministry of Justice Legal Services Commissioner Tracey Baguley said the figures were based on invoices received to date.  “Some of the legal aid files remain open and further invoices may be received; therefore, these amounts may change,” she advised.  Baguley said the amount paid included appeal costs of $53,671.65 for Danny Jaz and $43,658.96 for Roberto Jaz.  Auckland lawyers Ron Mansfield KC and James Carruthers represented the men at their appeal before Justice Cameron Mander in the High Court at Christchurch.  Mansfield’s most notable recent case was the prosecution of Philip Polkinghorne, the Auckland eye surgeon accused and acquitted of murdering his wife, Pauline Hanna.  Ron Mansfield KC. Photo / Michael Craig  After a trial spanning three months, Danny and Roberto Jaz were convicted of 69 charges between them, including rape, sexual violation, indecent assault, stupefying, disabling, making intimate recordings of women without their knowledge or consent and supplying illicit drugs. The offending took place at Mama Hooch and nearby Venuti - a bar and restaurant owned and run by the Jaz family in central Christchurch.  Each brother pleaded guilty to some charges and were found guilty by Judge Paul Mabey on the others.  He then sentenced Danny Jaz to 16-and-a-half years in prison for drugging and or violating 19 women.  Roberto Jaz was sentenced to 17 years behind bars for offending against eight women.  Both men were ordered to serve a minimum of half of their sentences before they are eligible for parole.  At their appeal, Mansfield accused Judge Mabey of bias and procedural unfairness, claiming the brothers were denied a fair trial.  He said the judge failed to remain neutral, favouring the Crown’s case over the men’s right to present a defence, further claiming he “ran roughshod” over and “shut down” defence evidence, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.  Judge Paul Mabey KC. Photo / George Heard  The Crown argued against the appeal, saying that while the trial, which spanned three months, was not perfect, the outcome was solid and right.  The appeal decision is yet to be released.  Last year a Mama Hooch survivor criticised the gulf in public funding for the defence compared to financial compensation and assistance for the victims.  Sophie Brown told the Herald she felt “disgusted” and “sad, quite frankly” about the amount the offenders were able to access to assist them in court.  “The fact that whatever a percentage of my money is going towards them fighting [the legal case]... is pretty disgusting,” she said.  “They’ve taken the rights of women away and now they are legally allowed to consume taxpayer money too.”  Mama Hooch sexual assault survivor Sophie Brown. Photo / Joe Allison  Although the victims were paid for their time when giving evidence during the trial and offered some counselling from a Christchurch sexual assault charity, Brown said for her the counselling did not work out.  “I appreciate what they [victim support] did for us when testifying for the trial, like going through booking travel and organising to come down to th...