The Trump administration said Thursday it will appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications in its effort to hike the fee by tens of thousands of dollars.

The Justice Department filed the notice three days after U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston vacated the fee, ruling that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing what amounted to a tax without approval from Congress.

The decision was a blow to Trump’s effort to restrict the H-1B program which was created in 1990 and is heavily used by U.S. tech giants to bring in highly skilled workers from overseas. The program allows U.S. employers to seek government permission to hire nonimmigrant workers in specialty occupations for up to six years.

Sorokin found that “the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax,” and said Congress had not delegated that power to the executive branch.

Trump imposed the fee by proclamation last September, arguing the H-1B program was being abused and was replacing American workers.

Before his proclamation, H-1B visa fees had ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 per application.

Several companies, including Walmart, said that they would pause their participation in the H-1B program as a result of Trump’s proclamation.

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congressional Democrats on Wednesday vowed to fight with what limited power they have from the minority in the House and the Senate against the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a voting map in Louisiana.

“Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all over this country to elect their candidate of choice,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said at a Congressional Black Caucus press conference on Wednesday. “But we’re not here to step back, we’re here to fight back.”

The court’s 6-3 decision weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act — a landmark 1965 civil rights law that prohibits discrimination in voting — and limits the consideration of race in drawing congressional maps. It strikes down a majority-Black district in Louisiana and could precipitate the elimination of other majority-Black districts represented by Democrats elsewhere in the country.

Republicans celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s decision is a victory for the Constitution and the principle that every American citizen is equal under the law. The Supreme Court made clear that our elections should be decided by voters, not engineered through unconstitutional mandates,” National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Richard Hudson, R-NC., said in a statement.

“For too long, activists have manipulated the redistricting process to achieve political outcomes, dividing Americans instead of bringing them together. This ruling restores fairness, strengthens confidence in our elections and ensures every voter is treated equally under the law,” Hudson continued.

The decision is likely to set off additional redistricting efforts throughout the country ahead of the November midterm elections and could swing the balance of the House.

“We’re not powerless and we’re not backing down. The Congressional Black Caucus is prepared to take any measure necessary to protect Black voters in this country,” CBC Chair Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y.

But Democrats are limited in what they can do without power in either chamber.

Clarke and other members of the caucus called for immediate passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a proposal to modernize the Voting Rights Act and strengthen legal protections against discriminatory voting practices and policies. She also said opponents of the decision would pursue Supreme Court reform, including term limits for justices.

At least until after the midterms, it’s doubtful Democrats could force any of those proposals to the House floor.

Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats on Wednesday launched a task force to fight back against what they allege are Republican attempts to subvert American elections. The…

The India-U.S. trade deal remains unsigned after months of negotiations, with the Iran war and a U.S. court ruling against tariffs creating room for fresh bargaining — a delay experts warn could come at a cost.

The first tranche of the deal was expected to be finalized by mid-March, but talks are still ongoing, leading to further delays.

“[The] Iran conflict is pulling diplomatic bandwidth toward energy security and geopolitical crisis management,” said Reema Bhattacharya, head of Asia research at Verisk Maplecroft, adding that this could stall trade talks further as a result.

An Indian trade delegation wrapped up its visit to the U.S. on Thursday, but the talks have not led to a conclusive announcement.

“Both sides are working towards a balanced, mutually beneficial, and forward-looking trade agreement, taking into account each other’s concerns and priorities,” a spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs said on the same day.

The delay in finalizing the deal could prove to be expensive for India as the U.S. administration will wrap up the investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in June, a move that would shift leverage towards the U.S., experts said.

In March, the U.S. administration launched trade investigations into China, India, the European Union, and more than a dozen other economies, in a bid to replace President Donald Trump‘s reciprocal tariffs, which were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court on Feb. 20.

“It’s critical that the agreement [between India and the U.S.] is sealed by the end of May,” Mark Linscott, former assistant U.S. trade representative and senior advisor at the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum, told CNBC via email.

India could face the risk of higher tariffs than what was agreed upon in February if it fails to sign off on the deal before the Section 301 probe ends, he said.

In August last year, the U.S. slapped India with some of the highest tariffs, of 50%. A part of this levy was punitive, intended for curbing India’s Russian oil imports.

In early February, the U.S. reduced those tariffs to 18% in return for New Delhi lowering duties on U.S. goods to zero, replacing Russian oil with supply from the U.S. and Venezuela, and buying $500 billion worth of American goods.

Both sides called the deal a success and were eager to sign a pact by mid-March, at least for the first tranche of the deal. But a few weeks later, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs as “illegal,” after which the administration imposed a 10% tariff rate for all its trading partners.

India would then be paying a higher rate than other countries if it agreed to the terms of the deal agreed with Washington. Speaking on the sidelines of the India-Korea Business Forum on Monday, Piyush…

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday denied Anthropic’s request to temporarily block the Department of Defense’s blacklisting of the artificial intelligence company as a lawsuit challenging that sanction plays out.

The ruling comes after a judge in San Francisco federal court late last month, in a separate but related case, granted Anthropic a preliminary injunction that bars the Trump administration from enforcing a ban on the use of its Claude model.

“In our view, the equitable balance here cuts in favor of the government,” the appeals court said in its decision. “On one side is a relatively contained risk of financial harm to a single private company. On the other side is judicial management of how, and through whom, the Department of War secures vital AI technology during an active military conflict. For that reason, we deny Anthropic’s motion for a stay pending review on the merits.”

With the split decisions by the two courts, Anthropic is excluded from DOD contracts but is able to continue working with other government agencies while litigation plays out. Defense contractors will be prohibited from using Claude in their work with the agency, but they can use it for other cases.

The DOD declared Anthropic a supply chain risk in early March, meaning that use of the company’s technology purportedly threatens U.S. national security. The label requires defense contractors to certify that they don’t use Anthropic’s Claude AI models in their work with the military.

Anthropic had asked the appeals court to review the Pentagon’s determination and argued that it’s a form of retaliation that’s unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious and not in accord with procedures required by law, according to a filing. 

In the ruling on Wednesday, the court acknowledged that Anthropic “will likely suffer some degree of irreparable harm absent a stay,” but that the company’s interests “seem primarily financial in nature.” While the company claimed the DOD was standing in the way of its right to free speech, “Anthropic does not show that its speech has been chilled during the pendency of this litigation,” the order said.

Because of the harm Anthropic is likely to suffer, the appeals court said “substantial expedition is warranted.”

An Anthropic spokesperson said in a statement after the ruling that the company is “grateful the court recognized these issues need to be resolved quickly” and that it’s “confident the courts will ultimately agree that these supply chain designations were unlawful.”

“While this case was necessary to protect Anthropic, our customers, and our partners, our focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI,” Anthropic said.

The…

“The Supreme Court, that’s right, of the United States cost our country — all they needed was a sentence — our country hundreds of billions of dollars, and they couldn’t care less,” Trump fumed. “They couldn’t care less.”

Referring to Gorsuch and Barrett, Trump said, “And they sicken me.”

“They sicken me because they’re bad for our country,” Trump added.

Trump’s other appointee to the high court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, dissented along with two fellow conservatives, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

The majority, in its decision in the case known as Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, said on Feb. 20 that a president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on imports from most countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as Trump had claimed.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA —’regulate’ and ‘importation’ — the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority decision.

“Those words cannot bear such weight,” wrote Roberts, who, like Gorsuch and Barrett, is a conservative.

Since the ruling, the Trump administration has moved to replace the revenue the U.S. government would have collected if the IEEPA tariffs had been upheld.

Trump, on Feb. 20, invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose global tariffs of 10% on imports, but those duties last for just 150 days unless Congress approves an extension.

Earlier this month, the office of U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer opened trade investigations into nearly 80 countries and economies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, including China, Japan, India, Mexico, and the European Union.

Section 301 allows the U.S. to impose tariffs on imports from nations found to have engaged in unfair trade practices.

President Donald Trump defended his tariff agenda during his State of the Union address Tuesday, even as a Supreme Court ruling striking down his emergency tariffs cast fresh confusion over the raft of trade deals negotiated with global partners.

The court ruled Friday that the president had exceeded his authority by imposing tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump has said he planned to do so again within the bounds of the law.

Almost immediately after, Trump replaced it with a 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 that took effect on Tuesday. He had also threatened to increase it to 15% tariffs under Section 122, but it is unclear when they would take effect.  

The ruling has raised questions about bilateral trade agreements structured around IEEPA tariff rates, prompting foreign governments to reassess their positions.

″[Trading partners] made concessions in exchange for specific tariff treatment that was grounded in IEEPA. That legal basis no longer exists,” said Johannes Fritz, CEO of the St.Gallen Endowment for Prosperity through Trade.

“Whether the administration can reconstruct those deals under Section 301 or other authorities, remains to be seen, but that will take time and new legal processes,” Fritz added.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 requires the U.S. Trade Representative to conduct a formal trade investigation into unfair trade practices before imposing tariffs.

“Those countries that were early in striking deals with the United States after the Liberation Day tariffs of last year have been sort of left holding the bag,” Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute, told CNBC “Inside India” on Monday. 

“Whereas those other countries that resisted, like Brazil and others, in agreeing to any demands from the United States may be feeling a little more vindicated,” he added.  

Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis, said countries that did not negotiate tariff reductions may now benefit more.

She cited Japan, which last year secured a deal lowering reciprocal tariffs to 15% in exchange for a $550 billion investment pledge. 

After the court ruling upended Trump’s tariff agenda, “they (Japan) are now paying to receive the same treatment as others,” Herrero said. 

Japan’s trade minister Ryosei Akazawa said Tuesday that the 10% universal tariffs could impose “additional tariff burdens on some goods,” urging Washington not to treat Japan less favorably than under last year’s trade deal.

India will likely continue buying Russian oil as the U.S. Supreme Court’s verdict outlawing President Donald Trump’s import tariffs has constrained his trade policy options, analysts said.

“I do expect that India will maintain a healthy relationship with Russia, including on energy,” Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft told CNBC’s Inside India. He added that India could reduce its Russian oil purchases but is unlikely to stop completely.

According to energy data provider Kpler, India has imported 1.16 million barrel per day (mbd) of Russian oil so far in February, lower than an average intake of 1.71 million barrels per day in 2025.

While it is too early to draw data on March and April arrivals, Muyu Xu, senior research analyst for crude at Kpler, said that “market chatter indicates” Indian refiners have refrained from booking April delivery of Russian oil this month following an interim US-India trade deal reached earlier this month.

But following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday that Trump did not have the legal authority to implement sweeping import tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Xu said India now has the room to maintain Russian oil imports between 800,000 and 1 million barrels per day.

According to Shidore, Trump’s ability to amend tariffs for reasons such as the purchase of Russian oil or factors unrelated to trade or economics will be constrained due to the court ruling.

India’s Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas did not respond to CNBC’s request for comments.

India’s purchases of Russian oil have been a thorny issue and led to the deterioration of ties between the U.S. and India last year.

In August, Trump imposed a 25% additional tariff on Indian goods to punish New Delhi for buying Russian crude, claiming that India was “fueling [Russia’s] war machine” against Ukraine. This, in addition to the 25% reciprocal tariffs the U.S. already had in place on Indian goods, meant that Indian exports to the U.S. faced total tariffs of 50%, the highest amongst all of the U.S.’ trading partners.

Following the interim trade deal, the U.S. slashed its tariff on Indian goods to 18% from 50%.

In an executive order on Feb 6, U.S. president Donald Trump removed its punitive 25% tariff on India, stating that New Delhi has “committed to stop directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil” and will purchase “energy products from the United States”.

But the joint statement issued by India and the U.S., announcing the interim trade deal omitted any mention of India committing to curb purchases of Russian oil. However, the statement did feature New Delhi’s intentions to buy half a trillion dollars worth of U.S….

Federal Express on Monday sued the U.S. government, seeking a “full refund” of the money the shipping giant paid for tariffs unilaterally imposed last year by President Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court last week ruled were illegal.

FedEx’s suit appears to be the first one filed by a major American company seeking a refund for tariffs paid after the Supreme Court decision on Friday.

Other companies previously filed lawsuits seeking refunds, before the high court ruled that the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are illegal.

FedEx filed its lawsuit at ther Court of International Trade, which the Supreme Court ruling on Friday said has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the IEEPA tariffs.

“Plaintiffs seek for themselves a full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiffs have paid to the United States,” says the suit, which names as plaintiffs Federal Express Corp, and its associated company FedEx Logistics. The named defendants are U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which collects tariffs, its commissioner, Rodney Scott, and the U.S. government.

The 11-page complaint does not say how much FedEx has paid in IEEPA tariffs since Trump imposed them on most U.S. trading partners last year.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump’s country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs are unconstitutional, delivering a win for many consumer companies facing higher import costs.

But the ruling doesn’t cover all sectors.

The Supreme Court reviewed tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, which the Trump administration used to justify the sweeping tariff agenda. The act had never before been used by a president to impose tariffs.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Still, hours after the ruling, Trump announced a new global 10% tariff, and the Supreme Court’s ruling does not cover tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Those duties are intended to target specific products that threaten national security, and they remain in effect after Friday’s ruling.

Separate from his country-specific rates, Trump has raised tariffs on imports of steel, semiconductors, aluminum and other products deemed to impair national security.

Here are the sectors still facing higher levies even after the Supreme Court decision.

It’s not immediately clear how much the decision will impact the U.S. and global automotive industry. The industry continues to face billions of dollars in tariff costs, depending on where an imported auto part or vehicle originates.

The Trump administration last year broadly implemented 25% tariffs on vehicles and certain auto parts imported into the U.S., citing national security risks. It has since struck independent deals to lower the levies to 10% to 15% with countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Others, such as South Korea, have also struck deals for lower rates, but it’s unclear if those changes have actually taken effect.

“With today’s decision out and subsequent developments, there remain many unknowns and important questions still to be answered. This is not a moment to ease up,” said Lenny LaRocca, U.S. automotive lead for consulting firm KPMG. “Automakers should continue planning for multiple scenarios and keep supply chain considerations top of mind as the trade and tariff landscape continues to evolve.”

America’s largest automaker, General Motors, last month said it expects between $3 billion and $4 billion in tariff costs this year, and Ford Motor earlier this month said its net tariff impact is expected to be roughly flat year over year at $2 billion in 2026.

Ford told CNBC in a statement that it is continuing to work with the government on policies that “promote a strong and globally competitive U.S. auto sector.” GM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court decision.