 |
|
|
|||||
A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump‘s argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called “America’s big case,” and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What’s the status of the litigation? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump’s use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court’s ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump’s tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an “administrative stay” that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit’s decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump’s tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the Supreme Court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump’s tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court’s decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of “vast economic and political significance” except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff “stacking” where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump’s trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress. Jan Wolfe and Dietrich Knauth, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. When assessing home price momentum, ResiClub believes it’s important to monitor active listings and months of supply. If active listings start to rapidly increase as homes remain on the market for longer periods, it may indicate pricing softness or weakness. Conversely, a rapid decline in active listings could suggest a market that is heating up. Since the national Pandemic Housing Boom fizzled out in 2022, the national power dynamic has slowly been shifting from sellers to buyers. Of course, across the country that shift has varied significantly. Generally speaking, local housing markets where active inventory has jumped above pre-pandemic 2019 levels have experienced softer home price growth (or outright price declines) over the past 36 months. Conversely, local housing markets where active inventory remains far below pre-pandemic 2019 levels have, generally speaking, experienced more resilient home price growth over the past 36 months. Where is national active inventory headed? National active listings are on the rise (+25% between July 2024 and July 2025). This indicates that homebuyers have gained some leverage in many parts of the country over the past year. Some sellers markets have turned into balanced markets, and more balanced markets have turned into buyers markets. Nationally, were still below pre-pandemic 2019 inventory levels (-11% below July 2019) and some resale markets, in particular, big chunks of Midwest and Northeast, still remain tight-ish. While national active inventory is still up year-over-year, the pace of growth has slowed in recent weeksmore than typical seasonality would suggestas some sellers have thrown in the towel and delisted (more on that in another piece). !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}))}(); July inventory/active listings* total, according to Realtor.com: July 2017 -> 1,322,659 July 2018 -> 1,261,916 July 2019 -> 1,239,534 July 2020 -> 822,834 July 2021 -> 546,686 July 2022 -> 691,652 July 2023 -> 647,135 July 2024 -> 884,273 July 2025 -> 1,102,787 IF we maintain the current year-over-year pace of inventory growth (+218,514 homes for sale), we’d have: 1,321,301 active inventory come July 2026 1,539,815 active inventory come July 2027 Below is the year-over-year percentage change by state. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); While active housing inventory is rising in most markets on a year-over-year basis, some markets still remain tight-ish (although it’s loosening in those places too). As ResiClub has been documenting, both active resale and new homes for sale remain the most limited across huge swaths of the Midwest and Northeast. Thats where home sellers this spring had, relatively speaking, more power. In contrast, active housing inventory for sale has neared or surpassed pre-pandemic 2019 levels in many parts of the Sun Belt and Mountain West, including metro area housing markets such as Punta Gorda and Austin. Many of these areas saw major price surges during the Pandemic Housing Boom, with home prices getting stretched compared to local incomes. As pandemic-driven domestic migration slowed and mortgage rates rose, markets like Tampa and Austin faced challenges, relying on local income levels to support frothy home prices. This softening trend was accelerated further by an abundance of new home supply in the Sun Belt. Builders are often willing to lower prices or offer affordability incentives (if they have the margins to do so) to maintain sales in a shifted market, which also has a cooling effect on the resale market: Some buyers, who would have previously considered existing homes, are now opting for new homes with more favorable deals. That puts additional upward pressure on resale inventory. In recent months, that softening has accelerated again in West Coast markets tooincluding much of California. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); At the end of July 2025, 12 states were above pre-pandemic 2019 active inventory levels: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Hawaii, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington. (The District of Columbiawhich we left out of this analysisis also back above pre-pandemic 2019 active inventory levels too. Weakness in D.C. proper predates the current admins job cuts.) !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("ifram");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); Big picture: Over the past few years weve observed a softening across many housing markets as strained affordability tempers the fervor of a market that was unsustainably hot during the Pandemic Housing Boom. While home prices are falling in many pockets of the Sun Belt, a big chunk of Northeast and Midwest markets saw a little price appreciation this spring. That said, given the current softening, ResiClub still expects that as the year progresses, more markets will fall into the year-over-year decline camp. Below is another version of the table abovebut this one includes every month since January 2017. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); If youd like to further examine the monthly state inventory figures, use the interactive below. (To better understand ongoing softness and weakness across Florida, read this ResiClub PRO report.) !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}();
Category:
E-Commerce
Tesla for years had more repeat U.S. customers than any other major automotive brand but its loyalty has plunged since CEO Elon Musk endorsed President Donald Trump last summer, according to data from research firm S&P Global Mobility shared exclusively with Reuters. The data, which has not been previously reported, shows Teslas customer loyalty peaked in June 2024, when 73% of Tesla-owning households in the market for a new car bought another Tesla, according to an S&P analysis of vehicle-registration data in all 50 states. That industry-leading brand loyalty rate started to nosedive in July, that data showed, when Musk endorsed Trump following an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania on the Republican nominee. The rate bottomed out at 49.9% last March, just below the industry average, after Musk launched Trumps budget-slashing Department of Government Efficiency in January and started firing thousands of government workers. Tesla’s U.S. loyalty rate has since ticked back up to 57.4% in May, the most recent month the S&P data is available, putting it back above the industry average and about the same as Toyota but behind Chevrolet and Ford. S&P analyst Tom Libby called it “unprecedented” to see the runaway leader in customer loyalty fall so quickly to industry-average levels. “Ive never seen this rapid of a decline in such a short period of time,” he said. Tesla and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. On Monday, Tesla granted Musk 96 million shares worth about $29 billion, a move aimed at keeping the billionaire entrepreneur at the helm as he fights a court ruling that voided his original pay deal for being unfair to shareholders. The timing of Tesla’s plunging brand loyalty suggests the CEO’s involvement in politics turned off customers in the EV pioneer’s eco-conscious customer base, some analysts said. “If they have Democratic leanings, then perhaps they consider other brands in addition to Tesla,” said Seth Goldstein, an analyst at Morningstar. Tesla’s aging model lineup also faces stiffer competition from an array of EVs from legacy automakers including General Motors, Hyundai and BMW. The only new model Tesla has released since 2020, its triangular Cybertruck, has proved a flop despite Musks prediction of hundreds of thousands of annual sales. On an April earnings call, Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja singled out “the negative impact of vandalism and unwarranted hostility towards our brand and people,” but also said there were “several weeks of lost production” when the company retooled factories to produce a refreshed version of its top-selling Model Y. Musk on the April call said that “absent macro issues, we don’t see any reduction in demand.” Tesla vehicle sales overall are falling globally and have declined 8% in the United States the first five months of 2025, according to S&P. Sales fell 33% over the first six months of the year in Europe, where public backlash to Musks politicking has been particularly fierce. Musk’s increased political activism was “very bad timing” for Tesla, said Garrett Nelson, an analyst who tracks the EV maker at CFRA Research, because it came exactly as the company faced heightened competition from Chinese EV makers and other traditional automakers. He said his top concerns for Tesla are its loss of market share and “what can be done to repair the brand damage.” LOYALTY NOSEDIVE Tesla remains the U.S. electric-vehicle sales leader but has seen its dominance erode as Musk last year delved into politics and focused Tesla more on developing self-driving technology than on new affordable models for human drivers. Customer loyalty is a closely watched auto-industry metric because it is much more expensive to take new customers from competitors than to retain existing ones, said S&Ps Libby. S&P offers some of the most detailed industry data on automotive purchases because it analyzes vehicle registration data from all 50 states on a household-by-household basis. Unlike survey data, it follows actual vehicle transactions to track how consumers migrate among brands and models. From the fourth quarter of 2021 through the third quarter of last year, more than 60% of Tesla-owning households bought another one for their next car purchase, the data show. Only one other brand Ford posted a quarterly loyalty rate exceeding 60% during the period, and only once. CUSTOMER DEFECTIONS S&Ps data also examines another aspect of the automotive market: Which brands and models are taking customers away from others, and which ones are losing them? Until recently, Tesla was in a different stratosphere than other automotive brands on this metric. For the four years prior to July 2024, Tesla, on average, acquired nearly five new households for every one it lost to another brand. No other brand from a major automaker was even close: Hyundai’s luxury Genesis brand was the next best, acquiring on average 2.8 households for every one it lost, followed by Kia and Hyundai, which acquired on average 1.5 and 1.4 households, respectively, for every one they lost. Ford, Toyota and Honda lost more households on average than they gained during that period. Teslas average inflow of customers started to decline in July 2024 along with its loyalty rate. Since February, Tesla has been gaining fewer than two households for every one it loses to the rest of the industry, its lowest level ever, according to the data. The data shows clearly that the net migration to Tesla is slowing, Libby said. Brands that now attract more Tesla customers than they lose to Tesla include Rivian, Polestar, Porsche and Cadillac, the data show. Brian Mulberry, client portfolio manager at Tesla investor Zacks Investment Management, said he isnt concerned about Teslas long-term earnings because he expects enormous profits from its plans to operate robotaxis and license self-driving technology to other automakers. Tesla launched a small test of robotaxis in Austin in June, giving rides to hand-picked fans and Internet personalities but the service isnt available to the general public. If Tesla succeeds in expanding the technology, Mulberry said, theres a case to be made that Tesla doesnt need to sell cars and trucks anymore. Chris Kirkham, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||