The short-term relief will allow the appeals process to proceed, after the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday barred most of the tariffs announced since Trump took office, ruling that he had overstepped his authority.

Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump has moved to reconfigure U.S. trade ties with the world while using levies to force foreign governments to the negotiating table.

But the stop-start tariff rollout, impacting both allies and adversaries, has roiled markets and snarled supply chains.

Prior to the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, known as an administrative stay, the White House was given 10 days to halt affected tariffs.

The Trump administration called the ruling “blatantly wrong,” expressing confidence that the decision would be overturned on appeal.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the judges “brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump.”

Leavitt said the Supreme Court “must put an end” to the tariff challenge, while stressing that Trump had other legal means to impose levies.

A separate ruling by a federal district judge in the U.S. capital found some Trump levies unlawful as well, giving the administration 14 days to appeal.

‘Hiccups’
Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told Fox Business that “hiccups” sparked by the decisions of “activist judges” would not affect talks with trading partners, adding that three deals are close to finalization.

Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro told reporters after the appellate stay that the administration had earlier received “plenty of phone calls from countries” who said they would continue to “negotiate in good faith,” without naming those nations.

Trump’s import levies are aimed partly at punishing economies that sell more to the United States than they buy.

The president has argued that trade deficits and the threat posed by drug smuggling constituted a “national emergency” that justified the widespread tariffs — a notion the Court of International Trade ruled against.

Trump unveiled sweeping duties on nearly all trading partners in April, at a baseline 10% — plus steeper levies on dozens of economies including China and the European Union, which have since been paused.

The U.S. trade court’s ruling quashed these blanket duties, along with those that Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China separately using emergency powers.

But it left intact 25% duties on imported autos, steel and aluminum.

Beijing — which was hit by additional 145% tariffs before they were temporarily reduced to make space for negotiations — reacted to the trade court decision by saying Washington should scrap the levies.

“China urges the United States to heed the rational voices from the international community and domestic stakeholders and fully cancel the wrongful unilateral tariff measures,” said commerce ministry spokeswoman He Yongqian.

Asian markets rallied May 29, U.S. indexes closed higher while Europe closed slightly down.

‘Extraordinary Threat’
The trade court was ruling in two separate cases — brought by businesses and a coalition of state governments — arguing that the president had violated Congress’s power of the purse.

The judges said the cases rested on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) delegates such powers to the president “in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.”

The judges stated that any interpretation of the IEEPA that “delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.”

Analysts at London-based research group Capital Economics said the case may end up with the Supreme Court, but would likely not mark the end of the tariff war.

Source:

In light of gridlock in Washington, many states – particularly those controlled by Democratic legislatures – have been passing new employment laws. While trends often begin on the coasts, momentum often brings them to the more conservative heartland as well.  Here we have highlighted three such movements to be aware of.

Minimum Wage
While the federal minimum wage remains unchanged, states have been raising their minimum wage with increasing regularity and in greater amounts.  Of course, employers are responsible for complying with the more generous of federal and state law, so in this case, the federal minimum wage is becoming increasingly obsolete. 

Following are the states with minimum wages above federal law, along with their 2023 rate:
Alaska ($10.85); Arkansas ($11.00); Arizona ($13.85); California ($15.50); Colorado ($13.65); Connecticut ($14.00); District of Columbia ($16.50); Delaware ($11.75); Florida ($11.00); Hawaii ($12.00); Illinois ($13.00); Massachusetts ($15.00); Maryland ($13.25); Maine ($13.80); Michigan ($10.10); Minnesota ($10.59); Missouri ($12.00); Montana ($9.95); Nebraska ($10.50); New Jersey ($14.13); New Mexico ($12.00); Nevada ($10.50 or $9.50 with health insurance); New York ($14.20); Ohio ($10.10); Oregon ($13.50); Rhode Island ($13.00); South Dakota ($10.80); Virginia ($12.00); ($13.18); Washington ($15.74); and West Virginia ($8.75).

Recreational Marijuana
Following the trend of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, states are increasingly legalizing recreational marijuana as well. While this may be troubling in and of itself for employers, the variations in these new laws are particularly challenging.  For example, in the November election, Missouri voters passed a constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana.  Setting aside medical use, the new Missouri law places restrictions on employer drug testing and response to positive tests.  Meanwhile, a recreational marijuana bill moving forward in Minnesota would prohibit pre-employment testing altogether, and effectively limit employer action to circumstances involving possession or use on site or demonstrated impairment at work.  Keeping up with this changing landscape is difficult enough in one state, but multi-state employers face a particularly tough task maintaining a single, multi-state policy.
Note: While marijuana remains criminally illegal under federal law, state employment law protections still apply.  However, if federal law requires drug testing for marijuana and consequential personnel action, such as Department of Transportation regulations, then employers should continue to follow federal law.

Pay Transparency
A new trend in the last few years is pay transparency legislation. These state statutes require employers to disclose the compensation range for positions in job postings.  Beyond wage or salary ranges, this can include eligibility for other compensation, such as commissions or bonuses, and a description of fringe benefits.  While there are only a handful of traditional “blue” states such as California and New York that have adopted these laws so far, these states are taking a broad view of their laws as applied to remote workers. For example, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment has interpreted its pay transparency statute to reach all job postings that are “capable of being performed in Colorado.” Thus, an Illinois employer that is open to remote candidates for a posted position is arguably within Colorado’s jurisdiction.  This issue is sure to be litigated, but for now, the reach of many of these statutes appear to go beyond their borders.

Conclusion: Minimum wage, marijuana legalization, and pay transparency are just a few examples of trends in state and local legislation impacting employers. Be sure to track updates in your state, and feel free to reach out to us if you have questions about the practical impact of any new laws.

David James and Joe Schmitt are shareholders in the labor and employment group at Nilan Johnson Lewis. Association members are entitled to 60-minute, no-cost, confidential consultations with the attorneys. Call the firm at 612.305.7500.

President Joe Biden signed legislation Friday to prevent a strike that he warned would cripple the economy and put millions of Americans out of work heading into the holidays.

“We’ve spared the country that catastrophe,” Biden said during a signing ceremony at the White House. “I know this was a tough vote for members of both parties. It was tough for me. But it was the right thing to do at the moment.”

At Biden’s urging, Congress voted last week to intervene in a labor dispute between rail unions and operators of the nation’s freight railways. Lawmakers voted to adopt a tentative agreement that the White House brokered in September between union leaders and rail operators.

Four of the 12 unions representing rail workers rejected the deal, setting the stage for a work stoppage that would have begun Dec. 9. The unions wanted more than the one day of paid sick leave provided in the agreement.

Some union leaders slammed the government’s decision to intervene, charging that many elected officials had turned their back on workers.

“While we are disappointed, we are not defeated,” Greg Regan and Shari Semelsberger of the AFL-CIO said in a joint statement. “We are going to keep this fight moving forward, whether it be through legislation, executive action, or dragging the railroads back to the bargaining table.”

Biden, promising he would pursue expanded sick leave for all American workers, said â€œthat fight isn’t over. … I’m going to continue that fight until we succeed.”

Lawmakers’ decision to adopt the agreement marked the first time in 30 years that Congress has intervened to stop a strike.

The agreement that Biden signed into law includes a 24% pay increase over five years, $5,000 bonuses, voluntary assigned days off, but only one paid sick day.

Biden, a supporter of labor unions, had warned that a rail strike would cost the economy about $2 billion each day and claim 765,000 jobs within the first two weeks of a strike.

Source:

Most companies are clear on their corporate values—but one French firm found itself in hot water recently after it fired an employee for refusing to embrace its self-ascribed “fun” culture.

In a court ruling earlier this month, a judge in France’s highest court ruled that Paris-based consultancy Cubik Partners had unlawfully dismissed the man, named in the case as Mr. T, for failing to be sufficiently fun.

According to court documents, Mr. T was hired as a senior consultant by Cubik in 2011 and promoted to director in 2014. However, he was dismissed from that position for “professional incompetence” in 2015.

That so-called incompetence arose when Mr. T refused to comply with Cubik’s “fun” values that the court said involved engaging in excessive drinking and other problematic behaviors. As his refusal to participate was given as a reason for his dismissal, the judge deemed he had been wrongfully fired.

The judge added that the company advocated practices including “promiscuity, bullying, and incitement to various excesses” among its staff at these events.

Source:

The 2018 initiative, Proposition 12, aims to prevent the  that pig farms typically use to house sows whose offspring are taken for slaughter and sale. The initiative requires at least 24 square feet of space per pig—10 square feet more than the industry says most sows are provided elsewhere in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has applied the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to prevent states from discriminating in favor of their own domestic industries.  applies regardless of where the pigs are raised, however, and lower courts dismissed the lawsuit because they found no constitutional violation in the initiative making it more costly to produce meat for the California market.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the industry argued that because most pork is raised outside California, the state is attempting to transform production practices throughout the country to meet its vision of animal welfare.

Timothy Bishop, representing the National Pork Producers Council, told the court that state regulations imposing costs on out-of-state businesses are unconstitutional.

“California’s moral view that pigs shouldn’t be kept this way could be matched by Iowa’s view that the most important thing about these sows is producing inexpensive pork,” Mr. Bishop said.

Under questioning from the justices, Mr. Bishop said California could take other steps to promote animal welfare, including applying the regulations to in-state farms, requiring grocery-store labels so consumers could identify pork raised under humane conditions or even forbidding sale of the meat altogether.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether California’s law truly would be so devastating to the industry, noting that consumer demand already was pushing farms toward more humane treatment. According to the briefs, 28% of gestating pigs already are housed in groups rather than confinement cages, she said.

Less than 10% of U.S. sow housing meets California’s Proposition 12 standards, up from roughly 4% at the start of 2021, according to agricultural lender Rabobank.

Violations of the law in supermarkets and restaurants could be punished with fines of up to $1,000 or as many as 180 days in jail, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Meatpacking companies and hog farmers have resisted California’s ballot measure, saying it would raise meat prices by causing hog farmers to spend millions of dollars building new barns and changing their operations. Pork suppliers say the law would create chaos in the supply chain and risk their pigs’ health.

Proposition 12 passed with 62% support, though its proponents’ argument in the official ballot materials noted that the measure would likely increase the price of pork, with additional production costs passed on to consumers.

U.S. pork companies are paying more for the hogs they buy from farmers, pressuring profits for some of the largest U.S. processors. Part of meatpackers’ challenge is that hogs are getting scarcer and more expensive. The costs of farm labor, equipment and livestock feed , making farmers more hesitant to grow the size of their herd, according to hog farmers. Pork industry executives and farmers say Proposition 12 would add another expense onto farmers and raise the price of pork.

Source:

            • Decreased productivity

            • Increased worker and unemployment compensation claims

            • High turnover

            • Lawsuits

Marijuana is the most frequently used illicit drug of abuse in the United States and the drug most often detected in workplace drug testing. In 2016, about one in five (7.2 million) Americans ages 18 to 25 self-identified as current users of marijuana, and about 15.2 million adults (7.2%) ages 26 and older used marijuana, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

A solid workplace drug policy can go a long way to keeping your organization drug-free.

What makes a good drug policy?

Studies show drug testing works; employees are three times less likely to produce a positive test result if they know they will be tested. An expanded testing panel that also includes the most commonly misused prescription drugs may better protect your workforce. An employer policy also should include:

            • Proper management training to make managers more likely to enforce the policy

            • Access to support for employees with drug problems, which can range from a formal assistance program to a referral to local resources

            • Clearly defined use and possession parameters for employees

            • Established rules for post-accident testing

            • Rules on how you will handle an employee’s conviction or arrest

A drug policy must be very specific and supported by workplace procedures to reduce the chance of litigation. Drug policy and workplace procedures should be reviewed by a lawyer to ensure they comply with state laws. And, policy must be updated frequently to keep up with changing laws and attitudes. The health and safety of your workforce depends on it.

Members of our Association have no-cost access to top-notch legal advice on any HR issue as a benefit of membership. To learn more about this and other valuable membership benefits, give our director of membership services, Matt Rice at call at 314.878.2304 or email Matt@FarmEquip.org.  

Source: National Safety Council, National Institute on Drug Abuse

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has announced the deadline for filing tax returns will be postponed three months to July 15 because of the coronavirus outbreak.

The decision comes after widespread complaints over the administration’s previous plan to give people who owed the IRS an additional 90 days to pay, without penalties or interest, yet still required them to file their returns by April 15.

Many called that plan confusing, with lawmakers on both sides urging the administration to synchronize the dates. Senate Republicans unveiled plans yesterday to postpone the filing deadline as part of their stimulus legislation now pending in Congress.

At President Trump’s direction, Mnuchin tweeted, “We are moving Tax Day from April 15 to July 15. All taxpayers and businesses will have this additional time to file and make payments without interest or penalties.”

Travel organizations, which have been sounding the alarm about a potential travel nightmare resulting from the new ID laws, applauded the bill, although with the deadline just eight months out, they wondered if it amounted to too little, too late. 

The Trusted Traveler Real ID Relief Act of 2020, introduced by Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), would allow TSA Precheck membership to serve as a temporary alternative to a Real ID at domestic airports, enable people to apply for the IDs online and create a plan for the TSA to vet people who show up without Real IDs. 

The U.S. Travel Association, Airlines for America and ASTA applauded the bill. 

“We are very concerned about the unintended impacts that this law will have on travel agency clients and the broader travel community,” said Genevieve Strand, ASTA’s director of advocacy. “The potential for disruption at security checkpoints is significant. We’ve seen estimates that as many as 500,000 passengers per week could be turned away.”

U.S. Travel data shows that 57 percent of Americans remain unaware of the Oct. 1 deadline, and an estimated 99 million Americans do not have a Real ID or alternative form of accepted identification, such as a U.S. passport, military ID or Global Entry card that will allow them to pass through airport checkpoints after Oct. 1. 

Given that the deadline is only eight months out, ASTA is hopeful the bill will mobilize TSA and other stakeholders to get out the word and focus on public education and awareness. 

The defendants are and Adrian Crawford of Duluth, Ga.

The suit claims one defendant had started employment with Deere’s direct competitor. The lawsuit states Deere brought the suit to stop the defendant’s possession, disclosure and use of Deere’s confidential information.

According to the suit, Seth Crawford has been employed at Deere since 1997, with his last position being director, global customer and product support. Adrian Crawford had been employed by Deere since 2008. At the conclusion of her career she held the position of manager, enterprise and analytics accelerator.

The suit alleges her position also allowed her access to trade secrets.

Deere spokesman Ken Golden said, “This legal action is in line with Deere & Co.’s commitment to our employees, shareholders, dealers and customers to always protect the company’s trade secrets and confidential information.

“Because this matter is in litigation, we will not comment on the specifics of the case. However, we believe the details described in the U.S. District Court complaint accurately support our reason for bringing legal action in this matter.”

As a result of a bipartisan, public/private coalition of 51 attorneys general, and 12 phone companies, the phone companies have agreed to adopt eight key principles to fight illegal robocalls. This agreement will not only protect phone users from illegal robocalls, but it will also make it easier for attorneys general to investigate and prosecute bad actors.

“Illegal robocalls not only disrupt our lives, but can also lead to falling victim to scams or fraud. Technology has advanced rapidly, and it’s become increasingly tougher to prevent and catch those responsible for illegal robocalls,” said Missouri Attorney General Schmitt. “With this coalition, attorneys general across the country and private companies are taking a proactive approach to fighting back against illegal robocalls. These principles strengthen our ability to pursue bad actors and work to put an end to the harassment.”

The principles address the robocall problem in two main ways: prevention and enforcement.

Prevention
Phone companies will work to prevent illegal robocalls by:

• Implementing call-blocking technology at the network level at no cost to customers.
• Making available to customers additional, free, easy-to-use call blocking and labeling tools.
• Implementing technology to authenticate that callers are coming from a valid source.
• Monitoring their networks for robocall traffic.

Enforcement

Phone companies will assist attorneys’ general anti-robocall enforcement by:

• Knowing who their customers are so bad actors can be identified and investigated.
• Investigating and taking action against suspicious callers – including notifying law enforcement and state attorneys general.
• Working with law enforcement, including state attorneys general, to trace the origins of illegal robocalls.
• Requiring telephone companies with which they contract to cooperate in traceback identification.

Going forward, phone companies will stay in close communication with the coalition of attorneys general to continue to optimize robocall protections as technology and scammer techniques change.

“The principles offer a comprehensive set of best practices that recognizes that no single action or technology is sufficient to curb the scourge of illegal and unwanted robocalls,” said Levi Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at Columbia University Henning Schulzrinne. “I hope that all parts of the telecommunication industry, both large and small, will commit to rapidly implementing these principles and work with state and federal authorities to make people want to answer their phone again without fear of being defrauded or annoyed.”

The coalition of attorneys general, led by North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, includes attorneys general from all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The coalition of companies includes AT&T, Bandwidth, CenturyLink, Charter, Comcast, Consolidated, Frontier, Sprint, T-Mobile, US Cellular, Verizon, and Windstream.