The Court invalidated Trump’s previous use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the basis for broad tariff measures. In its opinion, the justices emphasized that in the roughly fifty years since the law’s enactment, no president had invoked it to implement tariffs of such scale. The ruling also reaffirmed that under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the authority to levy taxes and duties rests with Congress.

A Shift to Alternative Trade Laws

Rather than retreating, Trump signaled a strategic pivot. Describing the Court’s decision as misguided, he made clear that tariffs would remain a central component of his trade agenda. The newly announced 10% global tariff will be implemented using provisions from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974.

Specifically, Trump confirmed that existing national security tariffs under Sections 232 and 301 will remain fully in effect. In addition, he intends to invoke Section 122 to layer a new 10% global tariff on top of standard duties already in place. This approach reframes the legal justification while maintaining the substance of the trade policy.

Background: Previous Tariffs and Legal Challenges

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, the administration had imposed a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico, along with a 10% tariff on Chinese goods under IEEPA. These measures were justified on grounds ranging from combating drug inflows framed as a public health crisis to addressing trade imbalances that allegedly threatened U.S. industrial capacity.

The Supreme Court, however, concluded that these justifications did not meet the threshold for national security emergencies under IEEPA, thereby limiting executive authority in this context.

Potential Market Impact

Historically, tariff announcements have triggered volatility across global markets, particularly in high-risk asset classes such as equities and cryptocurrencies. Heightened trade tensions often undermine investor confidence and contribute to short-term sell-offs.

With a new 10% global tariff now on the table, market participants will be closely monitoring both the legal ramifications and the broader economic consequences. Trade policy uncertainty may once again become a key driver of financial market sentiment in the weeks ahead.

In the comment section, you can freely share your comments about the topic. Additionally, don’ t forget to follow us on Telegram, Youtube and Twitter for the latest news and updates.

The post Trump is Imposing a 10% Global Tariff! appeared first on Coin Engineer.

Legal Battle Between 3AC and FTX

In a case heard in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Chief Judge John Dorsey rejected objections from FTX creditors. The FTX side argued that 3AC‘s claim was untimely and an attempt to delay the process. However, the court ruled that FTX‘s delayed response in providing necessary documents had caused the delay.

You Might Be Interested In: Elon Musk Talks About the Name of a New Memecoin!

3AC initially filed a $120 million claim in June 2023. Later, in November 2024, it increased this amount to $1.53 billion, alleging that FTX had engaged in unjust enrichment and failed to fulfill its obligations. According to 3AC, FTX liquidated $1.33 billion of its funds in 2022, causing significant financial damage.

Current Status of the FTX and 3AC Case

FTX objected to 3AC‘s amended claim, arguing that it was filed too late and lacked sufficient information. However, the court determined that 3AC‘s delays resulted from FTX withholding critical records, leading to the approval of the increased claim.

As the FTX bankruptcy proceedings continue, the exchange has also filed lawsuits against SkyBridge Capital, Binance, and Waves to recover lost funds. FTX is actively pursuing legal action to reclaim assets linked to former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried‘s past financial decisions.

You can also freely share your thoughts and comments about the topic in the comment section. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on our Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter channels for the latest news and updates.

The post Three Arrows Increases Its FTX Claim to $1.53 Billion! appeared first on Coin Engineer.

As stated by Auerbask, Bankman-Fried’s defense attorneys must submit the complete brief within the 91-day period, starting from the day when they receive the verbatim of the whole hearing record. This is just the first step that opens a pathway for ensuing discussions of procedural and substantive arguments that would somehow seem as though they are a ray of hope for defense. Auerbach underscores the importance of adequately trained trial counsel who apply a keen eye to determining the grounds for appeal.

“This will most probably be on the big novel procedural and substantive rulings that the Supreme Court might have made, which would likely be key,” Auerbach suggests obliquely that the game changers in the appellate domain could be expected.

In addition, Bankman-Fried’s defense could shed light on the claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel” (which is not very common, according to Auerbach). As Bankman-Fried and perhaps his family might play a significant role in his sentencing, this could serve to his advantage. There is a shadow of an argument that falls on both sides, as they are both entitled to the same cause. Nevertheless, the schedule of such hearings suggests a grave procedural issue, with the potential oral arguments postponing the hearings no later than nine months from now.

Auerbach explains in a few simple words: “There is a very low probability that at least nine months from now the oral argument will not be heard, as the Court of Appeals will want to carefully read through both the file and the briefs before the hearing.”.

With the legal proceeding released to ongoing public scrutiny, the opening brief, a tall order loaded with a lot of legal arguments and counter-arguments, remains a solemn milestone in the battle for justice.

The post Sam Bankman-Fried Appeals Conviction: The process Unfolds in a Court Room appeared first on Coin Engineer.

Yuga Labs sued Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen in June 2022, alleging that they infringed the company’s intellectual property rights through “imitation” NFTs that, it claimed, devalued its Bored Ape Yacht Club collection.

The Bored Ape Yacht Club or BAYC is one of the most valuable collections of non-exchangeable tokens on the market. At one point, Ripps defended the lawsuit as an attack on freedom of speech. He also vowed to settle the lawsuit for a minimum of 100 billion dollars.

NFT creators concerned about protecting the intellectual property rights of their collections will likely see the decision as a victory.

You might like: The Latest Status in Cryptocurrencies! – October 27

An Exceptional Case

The statement stated, “The strength of Yuga Labs position in this case makes it exceptional compared to most trademark infringement cases. This case is significantly different as it involves Defendants who use the guise of satire and parody to justify their trademark infringements. The court’s decision stated that ‘Yuga’s BAYC Marks would be used without Yuga’s permission.”

Furthermore, “The defendants conduct during the continuation of the case supports the finding that this is an exceptional case. The defendants were obstructive and evasive in their statements and during their trial testimonies, unnecessarily complicating these trials.” The statement continued.

In the comment section, you can freely share your comments and  opinions about the topic. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter for the latest news and updates.

The post Ryder Ripps, Will Pay Yuga Labs $1.6 Million! appeared first on Coin Engineer.