YANGON: Global aid groups have warned Myanmar they would boycott any new camps for Rohingya returnees to Rakhine state, saying refugees must be allowed to settle in their original homes.
The joint statement, signed by more than a dozen humanitarian organizations including Save the Children and Oxfam, said the groups were “concerned” by recent announcements that Myanmar would begin repatriating Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh in two months.
More than 620,000 of the Muslim minority have fled into Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar district since late August, when the Myanmar army launched a sweeping crackdown on Rohingya rebels in northern Rakhine state.
After inking a repatriation deal with Myanmar in November, Bangladesh said returnees would initially live in temporary shelters in Rakhine state.
That announcement raised fears that the refugees would face a repeat of the situation endured by more than 100,000 Rohingya in central Rakhine, who have been trapped in squalid camps ever since they were displaced by a 2012 outbreak of violence.
“There should be no form of closed camps or camp-like settlements. INGOs (international non-governmental organizations) will not operate in such camps if they are created,” aid groups said on Saturday, adding that all returns must be voluntary.
The UN has said the army campaign, which saw hundreds of Rohingya villages razed to the ground, likely amounts to ethnic cleansing and has possible “elements of genocide” — charges Myanmar vehemently denies.
While the worst bouts of violence appear to have subsided in recent months, refugees are still crossing the border, UNHCR said on Friday, insisting that peace must be secured before any repatriation process begins.
The Rohingya face intense discrimination in Myanmar.
Myanmar does not recognize the minority as a genuine ethnicity and has systematically stripped the group of citizenship, while curtailing their movement and access to jobs and basic services.
Authorities have also severely curbed aid access to northern Rakhine since the violence erupted in late August, a blockade that has helped drive more refugees across the border.
“It is critical that the returns are not rushed or premature,” said UN refugee agency (UNHCR) spokesman Adrian Edwards said.
“People can’t be moving back in into conditions in Rakhine state that simply aren’t sustainable.”
Htin Lynn, Myanmar’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, said recently that his government hoped returns would begin within two months. He was addressing the Human Rights Council, where the top UN rights official said that Myanmar’s security forces may be guilty of genocide against the Rohingya.
![]()
Aid groups vow to boycott new Myanmar camps for Rohingya returnees
Aid groups vow to boycott new Myanmar camps for Rohingya returnees
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda
WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.
The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up to demand refunds in lower courts. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows. The impact over the next decade was estimated at some $3 trillion.
The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in US history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren’t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote, using an acronym for the law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump set what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one called the major questions doctrine that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The conservative justices in the majority pointed to that principle in their ruling. “There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes,” Roberts wrote.
The Trump administration had argued that tariffs are different because they’re a major part of Trump’s approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.
But Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, brushed that aside, writing that the foreign affairs implications don’t change the legal principle.
The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up to demand refunds in lower courts. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows. The impact over the next decade was estimated at some $3 trillion.
The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in US history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren’t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote, using an acronym for the law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump set what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one called the major questions doctrine that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The conservative justices in the majority pointed to that principle in their ruling. “There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes,” Roberts wrote.
The Trump administration had argued that tariffs are different because they’re a major part of Trump’s approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.
But Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, brushed that aside, writing that the foreign affairs implications don’t change the legal principle.
Latest updates
© 2026 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.