An US Court of Appeal will review President Donald Trump on Thursday to impose duties after a lower court said he has overcome his power with sweeping contributions to imported goods, Reuters notes.

The Federal Court of Appeal in Washington will examine the legality of the “mutual” duties imposed by Trump on a wide range of US trade partners in April, as well as the duties imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.

In the courtrooms

A group consisting of 11 members, eight appointed by Democratic Presidents and three -appointed former Republican presidents, will hear the speeches in two cases that have filed five small US companies and 12 US states under the leadership of the Democrats.

“Duties make America great and rich again,” Trump wrote in a post on social media on Thursday morning. “To all my great lawyers who fought so hard to save our country, good luck in America’s big case today.”

Duties begin to turn into a significant source of revenue for the federal government, with customs duties in June four billion in about $ 27 billion, a record amount. This revenue could be vital to the offsetting of lost revenue from the Trump tax bill passed earlier this month.

But economists argue that duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump’s threats to duties, which are coming and leaving, have upset financial markets and disturbed the ability of US companies to manage supply chains, production, staff and prices.

The arguments – the day before Trump increased the tariff rates to imported goods from almost all US trade partners – mark the first test before a US Court of Appeal for the range of his tariff power. President Trub has made duties central to his foreign policy tool, aggressively practicing his second term as a lever in the trade negotiations, in order to repel what he has called unfair practices.

The states and businesses that challenged the duties argued that they were not permissible on the basis of the extraordinary presidential powers that Trump cited them to justify them. They argue that the US Constitution provides Congress and not the president the power for duties and other taxes.

Dan Reifield, Oregon’s Attorney General, one of the states that challenge contributions, said the tariffs are a “reciprocal tax” that makes the household items more expensive.

Trump cited widespread power to establish duties under the law on international economic power (IEEPA), a 1977 law, which has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies or to commit their assets. Trump is the first president to use him to impose duties.

Trump said April duties were a response to the ongoing US trade imbalances and the reduction of US productive power.

He argued that duties against China, Canada and Mexico were suitable because these countries did not do enough to stop the illegal passage of Fentanyl from the US border. Countries refused to claim this claim.

On May 28, a three -member committee of the US International Trade Court of Justice fought in favor of the democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. They claimed that IEEPA, a law intended to address “unusual” threats during national emergency situations, does not allow duties associated with long -term commercial deficits.

The Federal Court has allowed the duties to remain in force while examining the government’s appeal. The timetable of the court’s ruling is uncertain, and the side that will probably lose will probably appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The case will not have an impact on duties imposed on the basis of legal power, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports.

The US president has recently announced trade agreements setting duties on products from the European Union and Japan, following trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. The Ministry of Justice argued that the restriction of the president’s tariff power could undermine current trade negotiations, while other Trump officials said the negotiations were continued with minor changes after the initial setting in the court.

Trump has set August 1st as a date for higher duties in countries that do not negotiate new trade agreements.

There are at least seven lawsuits that question IEEPA’s invocation by Trump, including cases brought by other small businesses and the state of California.

A federal judge in Washington has decided against Trump in one of these cases and no judge has yet to support Trump’s claim for unlimited extraordinary tariff power.