The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his “Liberation Day” tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico.

The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the duties to remain in place while the appeals play out.

The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of “exceptional importance” warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31.

Steel, aluminum duties unaffected

The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature, have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.

The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies.

The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause.

Court decision disappointing says lawyer

The May 28 ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties, and the other by 12 U.S. states led by Oregon.

Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney for the small businesses that sued, said Tuesday’s federal appeals court decision was disappointing, but it did not mean that the Trump administration would win in the end.

For more tariff coverage, visit the Western Producer.

“It’s important to note that every court to rule on the merits so far has found these tariffs unlawful, and we have faith that this court will likewise see what is plain as day: that IEEPA does not allow the president to impose whatever tax he wants whenever he wants,” Schwab said Tuesday.

“The Trump administration is legally using the powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address our country’s national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking. The US Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay order is a welcome development, and we look forward to ultimately prevailing in court” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.

Trump first to use IEEPA to impose tariffs

Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs.

Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit.

The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA.

At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.

The post Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The justices voted 5-4 to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation seeking to invalidate the law, but they were divided in their reasons for doing so.

The industry had argued that the measure violated a U.S. Constitution provision called the Commerce Clause that courts have interpreted as empowering the federal government – not states – to regulate interstate commerce.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” wrote conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the court’s main opinion.

The measure, approved by voters as a 2018 ballot initiative called Proposition 12, bars sales in California of pork, veal and eggs from animals whose confinement failed to meet certain minimum space requirements.

The law mandates pig confinement spaces large enough to enable the animals to turn around, lie down, stand up and extend their limbs.

The pork industry groups argued that the law violated the Constitution by forcing farmers in other states to change their practices in order to sell pork in California, a lucrative market. The Canadian Pork Council signed onto an amicus argument filed last June in support of the U.S. pork groups.

Kitty Block, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, praised the ruling.

“We won’t stop fighting until the pork industry ends its cruel, reckless practice of confining mother pigs in cages so small they can’t even turn around. It’s astonishing that pork industry leaders would waste so much time and money on fighting this commonsense step to prevent products of relentless, unbearable animal suffering from being sold in California,” said Block, whose group intervened in the case to defend Proposition 12.

Scott Hays, president of the National Pork Producers Council and a Missouri pork producer, voiced disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” Hays said.

Seaboard Corp., the third-biggest U.S. pig producer, is prepared to supply California customers with “limited supplies of compliant pork” starting on July 1, company spokesperson David Eaheart said.

The company, which runs Seaboard Foods, converted a portion of its farms and plant operations to meet California’s requirements before the Supreme Court’s decision, Eaheart said.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a partial dissent that was joined by fellow conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The four said they would have allowed the challengers to the California law to pursue their claim in the lower courts.

“In my view, petitioners plausibly allege a substantial burden against interstate commerce,” Roberts wrote.

California farms collectively are only a small part of the US$26 billion-a-year U.S. pork industry. The size of cages used at U.S. pig farms is humane and necessary for animal safety, according to the industry, which asserts that California’s law gives the state unwarranted influence over the pork sector.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration sided with the pork producers in the case, saying that states cannot ban products that pose no threat to public health or safety due to philosophical objections.

Proposition 12 set the required space for breeding pigs, or sows, at 24 square feet. The current industry standard is between 14 and 20 square feet, according to a 2021 report from Dutch banking and financial services company Rabobank.

The Supreme Court took up the case after the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judge’s decision to throw out the pork industry challenge.

— Reporting for Reuters by Nate Raymond in Boston and Andrew Chung in New York; additional reporting John Kruzel in Washington and Tom Polansek in Chicago.

The post U.S. Supreme Court upholds California’s pig confinement law appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The Swiss company confirmed that it has reached a settlement, without confirming the financial terms. The accord came amid a trial in Minnesota state court that began earlier this month in which around 22,000 farmers were seeking $400 million (all figures US$).

The settlement came after a federal jury in June ordered Syngenta to pay $217.7 million to more than 7,000 Kansas farmers who blamed it for causing them catastrophic damage after Chinese officials began refusing U.S. corn shipments in 2013.

The settlement does not apply to lawsuits filed by U.S. grain handlers Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill against the Swiss seed maker, spokespeople for the three companies said. Cases brought by farmers in Canada are also still pending, Syngenta spokesman Paul Minehart said.

Syngenta declined to confirm the dollar amount of the U.S. settlement, which was first reported by Bloomberg News, saying the parties agreed to keep the terms confidential pending its submission for court approval.

“The proposed settlement would allow both sides to avoid the uncertainty of ongoing litigation,” Syngenta said in a statement.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers representing corn farmers in the federal litigation in a joint statement confirmed the existence of what they called a “preliminary settlement framework.” They did not detail financial terms.

In 2010, Syngenta began selling a strain of insect-resistant genetically modified corn called Agrisure Viptera in the U.S. It started selling a second strain called Agrisure Duracade in 2013.

Lawyers for the corn farmers accused Syngenta of negligently commercializing the corn seeds before obtaining export approval in China, a major importer.

In 2013, Chinese officials detected Viptera in U.S. corn shipments. The country began rejecting shipments containing millions of tonnes of U.S. corn because they contained the strain, which was unapproved for import, the farmers said.

Nearly 90 per cent of corn in the U.S., the world’s top grains producer, is now genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as farmers embrace technology that helps kill weeds and fight pests.

The loss of the Chinese market caused U.S. corn prices to plummet, the farmers’ lawyers said. China did not approve Viptera until December 2014, while Duracade is still pending approval.

Syngenta denied wronging. It said at the time that no company had ever delayed launching a U.S.-approved corn product in the U.S. just because China had yet to approve its import.

It also said the decline in sales to China was offset by exports to other countries.

— Nate Raymond is a courts reporter for Reuters in Boston.

The post Syngenta agrees to settle GMO corn litigation appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The verdict by a federal jury in Kansas City, Kansas, was announced by lawyers for the farmers, who blamed the Swiss company for causing catastrophic damage to them after Chinese officials began refusing U.S. corn shipments in 2013.

Their case was the first to go to trial. Thousands of other corn producers and traders also are seeking damages over China’s non-approval of the agrochemical giant’s corn seeds for importation.

Lawyers for the corn producers said in a statement that the verdict was “only the beginning.” They have claimed that damages for farmers nationally totaled $5.77 billion, according to court papers (all figures US$).

Syngenta said it will appeal the verdict, which included only compensatory damages and no punitive damages.

“We are disappointed with today’s verdict because it will only serve to deny American farmers access to future technologies even when they are fully approved in the U.S.,” Syngenta said in a statement.

In 2010, Syngenta began selling in the U.S. a strain of insect-resistant genetically modified corn called Agrisure Viptera. It started selling a second strain called Agrisure Duracade in 2013.

In their lawsuit, the Kansas corn farmers accused Syngenta of negligently commercializing the corn seeds before obtaining export approval in China, a major importer.

In 2013, Chinese officials detected Viptera in U.S. corn shipments. The country began rejecting shipments containing millions of tonnes of U.S. corn because they contained the strain, which was unapproved for import, the farmers said.

Nearly 90 per cent of corn in the U.S., the world’s top grains producer, is now genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as farmers embrace technology that helps kill weeds and fight pests.

The loss of the Chinese market caused U.S. corn prices to plummet, leading to over $5 billion in losses for corn producers, the farmers’ lawyers said. China did not approve Viptera until December 2014, while Duracade is still pending approval.

Syngenta denied wronging. It said at the time that no company had ever delayed launching a U.S.-approved corn product in the U.S. just because China had yet to approve its import.

It also said the decline in sales to China was offset by exports to other countries.

— Nate Raymond is a courts correspondent for Reuters in Boston; additional reporting for Reuters by Tom Polansek in Chicago.

The post Syngenta ordered to pay Kansas farmers in GM corn case appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.