Trump court cases

Independent, UK   - President Donald Trump is facing an onslaught of legal challenges over his administration's tariff policies.

Costco, Wanxiang Automotive Components, PMI Worldwide, and nearly two dozen states are all filing suits, joining more than 1,000 other companies arguing the import taxes are unlawful and causing widespread economic harm.

The tariff disputes center on two separate legal battles. The first involves tariffs the Supreme Court already struck down in February 2026, ruling that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Those tariffs collected $133 billion before being invalidated, and more than 2,000 companies are now suing to recover what they paid.

The second battle is over Trump's response. After the Supreme Court ruling, he immediately imposed new 10 percent tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, signaling plans to raise them to 15 percent. States and companies are now challenging this new tariff regime as an illegal end-run around the court's decision.

The flood of litigation reflects widespread opposition to Trump's tariff strategy. On March 5, attorneys general from 24 states—led by California, Oregon, Arizona, and New York—sued to block the new tariffs, arguing the president cannot use a different law to accomplish what the Supreme Court just prohibited. 

Alternet -   When President Donald Trump and his allies targeted pro-Palestinian activists for deportation, civil libertarians were quick to sound the alarm. Trump, they stressed, had every right to criticize their views, but targeting them for deportation because of those views was anti-First Amendment.

Now, a federal judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge William G. Young, is taking the Trump administration to task. In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, March 11, Young ruled that targeting pro-Palestinian activists for deportation because of their views "was unconstitutional, abhorrent to a society that cherishes free speech."

Young wrote, "As this Court recognizes, the entire theory of this administration is that of a unitary executive with no agency independence where every single employee within the Article II executive dances to the tune of the President…. This conduct must never happen again."