'The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,' Chief Justice John Roberts writes in 6-3 decision

WASHINGTON

The US Supreme Court struck down on Friday President Donald Trump's global tariff campaign, saying the major pillar of his administration's policies lacks a legal foundation.

The top court's 6-3 decision severely cuts down on a tool Trump has used to pursue his economic and foreign policy agendas after he spent much of his first year in office using the levies to push nations to cut new trade deals, and saying tariffs were one of several tools he used to pressure countries into halting wars.

The Supreme Court said the Constitution "very clearly" gives Congress the authority to tax, including decisions to impose tariffs, not the president.

"The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the majority, referring to the authors of the Constitution.

The court dismissed the president's rationale that a 1977 law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEAPA), allows him to impose the import duties on an emergency basis.

"IEEPA authorizes the President to 'investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit ... importation or exportation,'" Roberts wrote.

"Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes," he added.

Trump had used the IEEAPA to impose both his "reciprocal" tariffs on nations around the world, as well as separate duties he has slapped on Canada, Mexico and China with the stated aim of halting the flow of illicit fentanyl into the US.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

All three major US stock indices jumped on news of the ruling after negative GDP data released earlier Friday morning soured investors. Trump has yet to comment publicly on the top court's decision, though he has long defended his use of tariffs, saying they are a matter of "national security." By Michael Hernandez, Anadolu Agency

David Lammy intends to keep the most dangerous criminals in solitary confinement, eating, exercising and sleeping alone 24 hours a day - Stefan Rousseau/PA

Britain’s most dangerous extremist prisoners will be kept in “supermax” units similar to those in US jails, David Lammy has announced.

Offenders will be largely held in solitary confinement, eating, exercising and sleeping alone 24/7 under a high-security prison regime similar to ADX Florence, the supermax in Colorado nicknamed the Alcatraz of the Rockies.

The Justice Secretary also told MPs that he would consider new legislation to prevent prisoners held in the new units from using human rights laws to challenge the tougher conditions.

Extremist prisoners have access to the numbers of 15 lawyers from their in-cell phones and have used the present rules to bombard prison bosses with hundreds of legal claims to soften their regime.

The moves come after Hashem Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomb plotter, allegedly carried out a “terrorist” attack on prison officers at a maximum-security jail with hot cooking oil and makeshift knives. 

Hashem Abedi, one of the Manchester Arena bombers, allegedly carried out an attack on prison officers involving hot cooking oil and makeshift knives - Greater Manchester Police/AP

The changes were recommended by Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who said Abedi’s attack on three prison officers at HMP Frankland showed urgent reforms were needed to protect staff and prevent extremists radicalising other prisoners.

Mr Hall said the current system – where extremists are held in three “separation centres” within high-security jails – was flawed.

He said the centres sought to offer the prisoners the equivalent of a mainstream regime where they had time out of cells, could mix with other inmates in their units and had access to gyms and canteens.

He said this approach had made it a “touchstone of legal vulnerability” because staff feared that if they tried to restrict what prisoners could do, they would face legal challenges that they were being treated too harshly. 

Mr Hall, who visited the ADX Florence in Colorado for his report, instead proposed a new three-tiered system where the most dangerous extremists would be placed in “deep custody”, in a closely supervised unit isolated even from other prisoners within the separation centres.

They might be allowed to associate with one other named prisoner but would otherwise be kept in solitary confinement, similar to the US supermax units, where the criminals exercise alone in concrete, caged areas and live in cells designed to limit contact with the outside world. 

In his report, Mr Hall said it would be designed for prisoners such as Abedi “before they have a chance to commit a more serious attack”.

There would be an intermediate level for prisoners, where they would be able to mix with “smaller cohorts” of inmates and have access to some facilities such as a gym.

The highest tier would allow greater time out of cells, association and more facilities including possibly “self cooking” which is highly valued by prisoners.

Mr Lammy said movement between tiers by prisoners would only be permitted following rigorous new risk assessments. “We will begin designing this system immediately,” he said.

The Justice Secretary said he would also consider whether new legislation was needed to prevent prisoners using Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to challenge their conditions.

Two extremist prisoners held in separation centres have successfully argued before the High Court that limiting access to the gym, library, and educational opportunities and associate with other inmates violated their Article 8 rights to a private life. 

“I recommend that the Ministry of Justice take steps to limit the application of Article 8 of the ECHR so that it does not apply to placement within a separation centre or to risk management decisions within any part of the separation centre system,” said Mr Hall.

Nick Timothy, the shadow justice secretary, said the Government should go further and leave the European Convention on Human Rights to stop prisoners using it to “escape separation centres”. Story by Charles Hymas, The Telegraph

Chinese sanctions against British MPs and peers have been lifted following Sir Keir Starmer’s talks with Xi Jinping – but the group of parliamentarians affected warned they should not be used as a “bargaining chip” in talks with Beijing.

The lifting of the restrictions, which included a ban on travel to China, was promised by the Chinese president in his talks with the Prime Minister.

But the MPs and peers, including former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, said lifting restrictions on them should not be used as part of a deal to ease sanctions on Chinese politicians involved in human rights abuses in Xinjiang province.

Sir Keir revealed the sanctions on MPs and peers had been lifted during a series of broadcast interviews in Shanghai, saying he had been “duty-bound” to raise the issue.

He told ITV News: “This has been a cause of concern in Parliament and for parliamentarians for some time and that is why I raised it on this visit.

“And the response from the Chinese is that the restrictions no longer apply and President Xi has told me that that means that all parliamentarians are welcome to visit.

“That underscores the point I’ve been making all along, which is if you engage, if you come and visit and have that leader-to-leader dialogue, you can not only take the opportunities which we have been taking, but also resolve some of the more difficult issues between our two countries.”

Asked whether he was confident the parliamentarians would be safe travelling to China, he told Times Radio: “Well, of course.”

He added: “This was one of the issues that I was, you know, bound to, duty-bound to raise it, and I did raise it.”

The Chinese foreign ministry said: “The two sides agreed in principle to resume normal exchanges between the legislatures of the two countries.

“China welcomes British parliamentarians who have the willingness to visit China more and experience the real China.”

The UK imposed sanctions on four Chinese officials and a state-run organisation involved in human rights abuses in Xinjiang province, including against the Uighur Muslim minority.

It is understood that Britain will not be lifting restrictions in exchange. In response, in 2021 Beijing imposed sanctions on senior politicians including Sir Iain, former security minister Tom Tugendhat, Commons deputy speaker Nus Ghani, Tory MP Neil O’Brien, former MP Tim Loughton and peers Lord Alton of Liverpool and Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws.

In a joint statement they said: “In response to rumours that Beijing is considering lifting sanctions on us in exchange for diplomatic and economic concessions, we wish to make our position unequivocally clear: we would rather remain under sanction indefinitely than have our status used as a bargaining chip to justify lifting British sanctions on those officials responsible for the genocide in Xinjiang.

“We would reject any deal that prioritises our personal convenience over the pursuit of justice for the Uighur people.

“We stand in total solidarity with our families, former colleagues, and the civil society organisations who remain targeted by the People’s Republic of China.

“We will not accept any reprieve that applies only to sitting lawmakers while others, including civil society organisations, remain sanctioned.”

It is unclear whether the easing of sanctions will apply to Mr Loughton, who left Parliament at the 2024 election. By David Hughes and Christopher McKeon in Shanghai, PA Media