The centerpiece of President Donald Trump's economic policy sweeping taxes on global imports is under legal assault again.

The U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, heard oral arguments Friday in an attempt to overturn the temporary tariffs Trump turned to after the Supreme Court in February struck down his preferred choice even bigger, even more sweeping tariffs.

In his first attempt to impose global tariffs, the president last year invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), using the law to declare America's longstanding trade deficit a national emergency and to impose double-digit worldwide taxes on imports to combat it. He interpreted the law broadly to justify tariffs of whatever size he wanted, whenever he wanted to impose them, on whatever country he wanted to target.

The Supreme Court struck those tariffs down on Feb. 20, saying IEEPA did not authorize the use of tariffs to counter national emergencies.

But Trump had alternatives to IEEPA. The quickest option was Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose global tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, after which congressional approval is needed to extend them. After his defeat at the Supreme Court, Trump quickly announced 10% Section 122 tariffs. He said he'd raise them to the maximum 15% but hasn't yet done so. The tariffs are scheduled to expire July 24.

Two dozen states and some businesses quickly challenged the new tariffs in court. Friday's hearing lasted more than three hours as a three-judge panel tried to assess a provision that had never been used before to impose tariffs and to analyze congressional decisionmaking from more than a half century ago.

RELATED NEWS | Impacts of Trump's Liberation Day tariffs linger one year later

The judges intensely questioned lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the government about what certain terms mean including what precisely the term balance-of-payments deficits meant when it was used in the Trade Act of 1974 and what it means today.

I think the judges asked tough questions of all sides and were genuinely trying to find out what Congress meant when it passed section 122, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation for Liberty Justice Center, which represents some of the plaintiffs.

I would be stunned if the challengers prevail, said trade lawyer Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding law firm and a former U.S. trade official.

The trade court's judges, he said, are likely to defer to the president and allow the Section 122 tariffs to stay, considering that they will expire in three and a half months anyway. I just dont see them sticking their neck out on this one, given how temporarily its in place and how much discretion these courts give to the president, he said.

Section 122 is aimed at what it calls fundamental international payments problems. At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them.

The provision arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.

Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president had needed to invoke IEEPA because Section 122 did not have any obvious application in fighting trade deficits, which it called conceptually distinct from payments problems.

Awkwardly for the plaintiffs challenging his use of the temporary tariffs, the trade court itself wrote last year in its own decision striking down IEEPA tariffs that Trump didnt need them because Section 122 was available to counter trade deficits.

Last May, the trade court issued a decision striking down Trumps IEEPA tariffs about two weeks after hearing oral arguments in the case. Attorney General Dan Rayfield of Oregon, one of the states challenging Trumps latest tariffs, is eager for another speedy ruling. We are hopeful to get a result sooner than later, he said. When the president continues to do an unlawful action and take money out of the pockets of Americans, we want a response as quickly as we can from the courts.

MORE ON TARIFFS | Who did this to them: Democrats weaponize tariff backlash in campaigns

President Trump is renewing his threats to target Iran's civilian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges, if Iran does not allow vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

In a social media post over the weekend, President Trump said "Tuesday will be power Plant Day and bridge day. All wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be nothing like it."

On Monday a journalist asked President Trump if there were any targets that would be off limits if the U.S. undertakes more strikes against Iran.

"We have a plan because of the power of our military," President Trump said. "Every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o'clock tomorrow night. Every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again. I mean, complete demolition, by 12 o'clock. And it will happen over a period of four hours if we want it to. We don't want that to happen. We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation. And you know what? If that's the case, the last thing we want to do is start with power plants, which are among the most expensive thing, and bridges."

International law experts are concerned about the president's choice of targets, and his choice of words. They have led to allegations that President Trump is threatening to commit war crimes.

Experts are also concerned that Iran may be committing war crimes as well. They pointed out the fact that Iran has targeted hotels, for example, where civilians are staying.

RELATED NEWS | Trump addresses reporters after ominous threat to strike Iran's infrastructure

U.S. officials may face legal backlash if the country goes forward with strikes against civilian infrastructure.

The United States is party to international laws that seek to prevent war crimes. The Department of Justice may press charges against officials that have broken those laws.

It is not clear whether President Trump himself may face such charges, due to a Supreme Court decision from 2024 which held that presidents retain immunity for official acts.

But legal experts say other members of the administration and armed forces may be more liable.

Cody Corliss, a former war crimes prosecutor for the United Nations, is one of more than 100 international experts who signed a letter expressing concern over potential war crimes in Iran.

Scripps News' Ava-joye Burnett: Could members of the armed services face prosecution for carrying out orders from their higher-ups?

Cody Corliss: Potentially, yes. And if you probably recall that certain members of Congress said "you should not carry out an unlawful order." Remember Secretary of Defense Hegseth was very angry, for example, at Senator Kelly when he said that. But that's truth. Soldiers should not carry out unlawful orders, orders that are manifestly unlawful or orders that are war crimes. Choosing to carry out a manifestly unlawful order can expose one to criminal penalties.

Several Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday of the Trump administrations effort to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to undocumented migrants.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the federal government, while Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued on behalf of challengers.

At issue is the interpretation of the first section of the 14th Amendment, which states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

Sauer argued that children born to undocumented migrants are not automatically entitled to citizenship, focusing on the amendments phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof. He also emphasized the concept of domicile, arguing that if parents are not legally established in the United States, their children should not automatically receive citizenship.

But several justices, including both liberals and some conservatives, questioned that interpretation. They pressed Sauer on whether anyone physically present in the U.S. is inherently subject to its laws, and how the government would determine citizenship at birth.

Is this happening in the delivery room? Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, highlighting concerns about the practical implications of enforcing such a policy.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also challenged the administrations argument.

You say that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to put newly freed slaves on equal footing so they would be citizens. But thats not textual, Barrett told Sauer, as he pointed to historical context from the 19th century.

At times, it appeared Sauer was being heavily questioned by the court, with multiple justices returning to the meaning of jurisdiction and whether longstanding precedent supports birthright citizenship regardless of a parents immigration status.

President Donald Trump attended part of the arguments, becoming the first sitting president to do so.

Trump sat in the first row of the public section alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and other administration officials, rather than in the section typically reserved for counsel. He entered shortly before the justices took the bench and, like others in the courtroom, stood as they entered.

He left shortly after Sauer concluded his argument.

Trump signed the executive order at the center of the case on the first day of his second term as part of what the White House described as an effort to repair the United States immigration system.

The ACLU, which is challenging the order, says birthright citizenship has been applied for more than a century regardless of a childs parents immigration status.

Im confident that the court is going to turn back this presidents effort to radically rewrite our 14th Amendment rule, Wang said outside the court after arguments. We have a nation of millions on our side. We couldnt be more confident about arguments here.

The group warns that a ruling in favor of the administration could create widespread complications.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, more than 250,000 children could be denied U.S. citizenship each year if the court sides with the Trump administration.

Attorneys for Georgia's Fulton County and President Donald Trump's administration squared off in court Friday over the county's demand that the FBI return seized ballots and other materials from the 2020 election.

Abbe Lowell, representing Fulton County, repeatedly called the January seizure unusual because it involved an old election and allegations that have already been investigated in the years since Donald Trump, a Republican, lost the county and the state to Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Lowell suggested that the Trump administration seized the materials because it grew impatient with the pace of litigation the Justice Department filed to obtain them last year. He said the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant failed to allege any specific crime or accuse anyone of intentionally committing any wrongdoing.

There's nothing to support that there's an ongoing investigation that matters, Lowell told U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, arguing that the federal government should return the seized documents.

A. Tysen Duva, the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division, dismissed disputes over the grounds for the seizure as posturing.

Is there a predicate reason to perform this investigation? Of course there is, he said. He argued that the fact that other investigations had raised concerns, even if they hadn't found evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

Just because all of these other entities say one thing doesn't mean the FBI can't investigate, he said.

Lawyers for the federal government said the Justice Department had already provided Fulton County with digital copies of everything taken and needs to retain physical copies to carry out its own investigation.

RELATED STORY | FBI executes search warrant at Fulton County elections office near Atlanta

Trump's actions alarm Democrats and election officials

The Jan. 28 seizure from a warehouse near Atlanta targeted the elections hub in Georgia's most populous county, which is heavily Democratic and includes most of Atlanta. Fulton County has been at the center of unfounded claims by Trump and his allies that widespread election fraud cost him reelection.

The FBI's move was among several actions by the Trump administration that have alarmed Democrats and many election officials who are concerned it's using law enforcement to pursue the president's personal grievances and is planning ways to interfere in this year's midterm elections. The FBI also used a subpoena earlier this month to obtain records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County in Arizona, another battleground state Trump lost that year.

At the same time, the Justice Department is fighting numerous states in court for access to voter data that includes sensitive personal information. Election officials, including some Republicans, have said handing over the information would violate state and federal privacy laws.

RELATED NEWS | Georgia officials challenge legality of FBI raid on Fulton County election offices

Justice Department says it's investigating 2020 irregularities

Lawyers for Fulton County argued that the seizure of its documents demonstrates callous disregard for the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Justice Department attorneys argued that preparing a detailed affidavit and presenting it to a judge shows they clearly didn't show callous disregard for those constitutional rights. The county is just upset that the documents were taken, Duva said.

The Justice Department has said it is investigating irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election in the County and identified two laws that might have been violated. One requires election records to be maintained for 22 months, while the other prohibits procuring, casting or tabulating false, fictitious or fraudulent ballots.

A court filing said the FBI is looking into whether Fulton County properly retained ballot images; whether some ballots were scanned and counted multiple times; whether unfolded, unmailed ballots were counted as mail-in absentee ballots; and potential irregularities concerning tabulator tapes from the scanners used to count ballots.

Fulton County's lawyers argued that the deficiencies or defects in the county's handling of the 2020 election cited in the affidavit are the kinds of human errors that commonly occur without any intentional wrongdoing and cannot establish probable cause.

Election tech expert explains alleged problems

To support their claims, Fulton County officials called Ryan Macias, an election technology and security expert who advised the county during the 2020 election, to testify. He said the affidavit contains many false or misleading statements and isn't grounded in reality. He offered explanations for the alleged deficiencies.

Duva questioned Macias about his knowledge of criminal investigation procedures, eliciting admissions that it was not his area of expertise.

Investigations by the Georgia secretary of state and independent reviews contradict the core allegations of the affidavit, which relies on witnesses who lack credibility and have biases that weren't disclosed to the magistrate judge, Lowell argued.

Georgia's votes in the 2020 presidential race were counted three times, including once by hand, and each count affirmed Biden's win.

Duva rejected the idea that the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit misled the judge, noting that the affidavit included investigative findings that disputed some of what witnesses had said. He also asserted that a lapse of the statute of limitations on the potential crimes does not negate probable cause.

The Justice Department also noted that a federal magistrate judge reviewed the FBI affidavit and signed off on the search warrant. Fulton County sought to have the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit testify at Fridays hearing, but the Justice Department objected and the judge sided with the federal government.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday sounded skeptical of state laws that allow the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.

The court heard arguments in a case from Mississippi that also could affect voters in 13 other states and the District of Columbia, which have grace periods for ballots cast by mail. An additional 15 states that have more forgiving deadlines for ballots from military and overseas voters also could be impacted.

A ruling is expected by late June, early enough to govern the counting of ballots in the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

RELATED STORY | What's in the voting bill that Republicans are pushing to the Senate floor

The court challenge is part of Trump's broader attack on most mail balloting, which he has said breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and years of experience in numerous states.

Several conservative justices gave voice to some of Trump's complaints. Justice Samuel Alito wondered about the appearance of fraud in situations where "a big stash of ballots" that arrive late "radically flipped" an election.

Defending the state law, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart pointed out that the Trump administration and its allies in the case have yet to submit a single case of fraud due to late-arriving mail ballots.

The court's liberal justices indicated they would uphold state laws with post-Election Day deadlines.

"The people who should decide this issue are not the courts, but Congress, the states and Congress," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Forcing states to change their practices just a few months before the election risks "confusion and disenfranchisement," especially in places that have had relaxed deadlines for years, state and big-city election officials told the court in a written filing.

RELATED STORY | Trump says GOP cant win without voting law changes, demands action from Senate

California, Texas, New York and Illinois are among the states with post-Election Day deadlines. Alaska, with its vast distances and often unpredictable weather, also counts late-arriving ballots.

Lawyers for the Republican and Libertarian parties, as well as Trump's administration, are asking the justices to affirm an appellate ruling that struck down a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by Election Day.

Justices worried over the slippery-slope problems that could arise no matter who wins the case.

Ballots could be received until the start of the next Congress, two months after the election, Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested.

On the other side, Justice Elena Kagan said the logic of the challenge to late-arriving ballots also would be used to rule out early voting and absentee ballots.

Limits on early-voting also seemed to bother Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed the conservative member of the court most likely to side with Mississippi.

The court also grappled with whether state laws allowing for late-arriving ballots from military and overseas ballots could survive.

Last year, Trump signed an executive order on elections that aims to require votes to be "cast and received" by Election Day. The order has been blocked in pending court challenges.

At the same time, four Republican-dominated states Ohio, Kansas, North Dakota and Utah eliminated grace periods last year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and Voting Rights Lab.

The issue at the Supreme Court is whether federal law sets a single Election Day that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials.

In striking down Mississippi's grace period, Judge Andrew Oldham of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the state law allowing the late-arriving ballots to be counted violated federal law.

Oldham and the other two judges who joined the unanimous ruling, James Ho and Stuart Kyle Duncan, all were appointed by Trump during his first term.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin promised on Capitol Hill this week that if he is confirmed as DHS secretary, he will direct U.S. agents to use judicial warrants, signed by a judge, whenever possible except for in extreme circumstances.

Judicial warrants are legally distinct from administrative warrants, which are generally issued and signed by federal agencies. Judicial warrants are signed by a judge and usually explain specific details about what may be searched and when.

Experts say judicial warrants help ensure proper oversight and protection of rights.

"One of the main reasons for the existence of the 4th Amendment was to have a disinterested objective observer be required to sign off before law enforcement violates really important rights, whether arresting you are searching your home or whatever," said Ronald Allen, a professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. "As one Supreme Court opinion said, we don't want the people that are engaged in a competitive process of ferreting out crime to be making these decisions as to whether there's adequate information to violate it may not be a violation, but to ensure some of these important rights."

Experts also said in instances where agents enter someone's home without the proper warrant and then there is a case of damage or death, victims or family members may not have the proper legal recourse in court. Or it could take some time for people to get some sort of remedy against the government or those agents.

RELATED STORY | Mullin clashes with senators at key DHS confirmation hearing

The issue of judicial warrants is in the spotlight following nationwide protests against the Trump administration's immigration policies and the conduct of ICE and other Homeland Security agencies. Images went viral of ICE agents going into communities and homes to arrest people.

Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman says that did a lot to steer how agents' conduct was received.

"What matters is public opinion and popular opposition," Seidmand said. "So what got DHS to back off of this was not some ruling by some judge. It was very brave and committed people who took to the streets in freezing weather to protest this. That's why they backed off. If there's a remedy, the remedy not legal. It is popular opposition."

There remain certain exceptions to the rules surrounding judicial warrants, such as cases of invitation from residents or emergency circumstances.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Friday that 30 more people have been indicted for allegedly taking part in an anti-immigration enforcement protest at a Minnesota church.

In a social media post, Bondi said 25 people had been arrested with more arrests to come later in the day.

"YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP. If you do so, you cannot hide from us we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you," she wrote in the post. "This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith."

Others arrested include independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, and prominent local activist Nekima Levy Armstrong, who was the subject of a doctored photo posted by the White House showing her crying during her arrest. They have pleaded not guilty to civil rights charges.

RELATED STORY | Former CNN journalist Don Lemon pleads not guilty in St. Paul church demonstration case

In total, 39 people have been charged over the church protest and all are charged with conspiracy against religious freedom and interfering with the right of religious freedom.

Protesters descended on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18 after learning that one of the church's pastors also serves as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official. The protest drew swift condemnation from Trump administration officials and conservative leaders for disrupting a Sunday service.

The church protest came amid a tense couple months for Minnesota, where the Trump administration sent thousands of federal officers for Operation Metro Surge after a series of government fraud cases where the majority of defendants had Somali roots. Federal officers frequently deployed tear gas for crowd control in neighborhood clashes with activists, often detaining them along with immigrants.

On Jan. 7, a federal officer shot and killed 37-year-old mother Renee Good in south Minneapolis. In another fatal shooting one week after the church protest, a federal officer killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti.

RELATED STORY | Arrests linked to Minnesota church protest raise constitutional concerns

Nationwide demonstrations erupted in response, followed by a change in Operation Metro Surge's leadership and the eventual wind-down of the immigration enforcement operation in mid-February.

Since then, the Twin Cities have grappled with the impact to communities and the local economy. The city of Minneapolis said it suffered an impact of $203.1 million due to the operation, with tens of thousands of residents in need of urgent relief assistance.

Federal judges heard two separate cases Monday regarding immigration action in Minnesota.

The first case involves Minnesota's attorney general calling for an end to Operation Metro Surge and for agents to leave the state.

Following the shooting death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti over the weekend, attorneys for the state of Minnesota wrote to the judge and asked for a quicker remedy. In the letter they described the situation as "grave" and said they believed the Trump administration is acting unlawfully.

Judge Katherine Menendez heard arguments for more than two hours Monday, but did not immediately make a ruling.

The judge acknowledged that Minnesota was in "shockingly unusual times," but said she didn't know if that gave her leeway to seek a remedy under the 10th Amendment, which constitutionally protects states' rights.

A letter this weekend from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz accused local authorities of breaking federal rules.

"The Pam Bondi letter, it's kind of reveals what this is all about," said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. "This is not about fraud and it's not even about immigration. And it's certainly not about law enforcement. It's about handing over documents of the state of Minnesota, private information including voting information to the federal government. That's what this is about. And that makes that's why we're fighting it."

RELATED NEWS | DHS reviewing 'multiple angles' of body cam footage from Minneapolis protester shooting

Is a separate hearing Monday, a federal judge in St. Paul was considering a case that would force the federal government to preserve any evidence that could be used in future court proceedings, especially when it comes to people in the state of Minnesota who are harmed by ICE activities.

Judge Eric Tostrud ordered Saturday that the Trump administration would be stopped from "destroying or altering evidence" related to Pretti's shooting. An attorney for the state sought the ruling in order to secure evidence from federal officials that Minnesota hasn't reviewed yet.

A federal judge is weighing whether to grant a temporary restraining order that would halt a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents operating in Minnesota.

During a hearing, attorneys for the state asked U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino Menendez to immediately block what the administration calls Operation Metro Surge.

The lawsuit argues the expanded federal immigration enforcement presence is causing widespread harm and may violate the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

The state told the judge that since the lawsuit was filed, following the shooting of Renee Good, another person, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed by federal agents.

Minnesotas attorney said the operation is leading people to forgo medical care. In one jurisdiction, the attorney said, learning has essentially stopped because families and students are afraid.

The state also cited economic impacts, with restaurants, businesses and events closing or altering operations. One person compared the disruption to the COVID-19 pandemic, the attorney said.

Judge Menendez questioned whether the federal governments actions violate the 10th Amendment and whether the court has the authority to intervene.

Justice Department attorneys, for their part, said the surge is not intended to enforce federal law. They argued the operation is tied to Minneapolis status as a sanctuary city.

Judge Menendez asked whether the surge would end if local governments complied with federal demands. DOJ attorneys did not say definitively what would happen next.

The hearing ended without an immediate ruling. Judge Menendez said the issue is a priority for the court.

If I had a burner, this would be on the front burner, she said.