President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

The Supremes have struck down Trump's tariffs. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts (who wrote the opinion) were joined by the three liberal justices. This will be another Lawyers Relief Act as there will almost certainly be an avalanche of litigation over the tariffs already collected. it will also be fun to watch how Trump tries to work around this.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'm looking forward to Trump's eloquent, measured, and statesmanlike response.

[Northwestcoug]

I'm looking forward to Trump's eloquent, measured, and statesmanlike response.

There's no way he's going away quietly. It's his favorite word! I'm sure he's looking at other statutes that he can try to continue tariffs.

[dabrockster]

The Supremes have struck down Trump's tariffs. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts (who wrote the opinion) were joined by the three liberal justices. This will be another Lawyers Relief Act as there will almost certainly be an avalanche of litigation over the tariffs already collected. it will also be fun to watch how Trump tries to work around this.

Did the decision even speak to refunding the money or did it avoid that like the plague? If they avoided, I am guessing none of it will be given back.. Looks like another SCOTUS decision will be taking place to rule on that..

[dabrockster]

Looks like they kicked the bucket down the hill.. Only mention of refund was in dissent..

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting

In the meantime, however, the interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial. The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others. As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a “mess.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 153–155. In addition, according to the Government, the IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, and more. The Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements. In any event, the only issue before the Court today is one of law. In light of the statutory text, longstanding historical practice, and relevant Supreme Court precedents, I would conclude that IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate . . . importation” by imposing tariffs on foreign imports during declared national emergencies. I therefore respectfully dissent.1

So the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. But the Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds. Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury. 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. Tr. of Oral Arg. 153–155. A second issue is the decision’s effect on the current trade deals. Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements. That process, too, could be difficult.

[Moliere]

The refund should mostly go back to us citizens who paid most of the tariffs.

[LVAllen]

The refund should mostly go back to us citizens who paid most of the tariffs.

It should, but there's no way to directly link the exact cost to the consumer. The cost incurred by a particular business entity is readily available by payment records, and it should be refunded immediately.

[dabrockster]

The refund should mostly go back to us citizens who paid most of the tariffs.

TAX BREAK BABY!!! Send us that windfall for this coming taxes we are all filing..

[Jeff Lebowski]

Seems like most people agree this is a great day.

Embedded Tweet

[LVAllen]

Stay tuned for how this affects the foreign policy. Currently, Trumpo uses exactly two methods to try and extort other countries: tariffs and the threat of military power. SCOTUS just largely took one of those tools away.

He can't use soft power or gentle persuasion. He's burned those bridges even if he had the negotiating chops to close that kind of deal. He can't use foreign aid, since he burned USAID to the ground and let China pick up the worldwide slack. He can't use military equipment sales, because the world doesn't trust the US on that anymore.

Meanwhile, the economic report is reflecting the kind of dogwater mess he's been making domestically. Inflation is up, jobs are stagnant, and the price of power is soaring as AI gorges itself on the grid. I'm sure he'll try to blame immigrants, poor people, and trans.

[Shaka]

Good SCOTUS!

[frank ryan]

What can Trump do to try and slow play this or ignore it?

[Northwestcoug]

One of my guilty pleasures is to watch Trump's cabinet when they are forced to appear with him in press conferences. I love to see their dignity melt away with every wrong or terrible thing he says, and watching all those performative laughs when he attacks half the country. And of all those who do it, not many do it with more obsequiosness than Nutlick. Although he looks pretty somber in today's Trump press conference, he still has been given his dignity away freely at each Trump joke. I love to see it.

[falafel]

It should, but there's no way to directly link the exact cost to the consumer. The cost incurred by a particular business entity is readily available by payment records, and it should be refunded immediately.

Isn’t that just a windfall for the businesses?

[LVAllen]

Isn’t that just a windfall for the businesses?

Yup. They paid the tariffs, taxed their customers, and get the tariffs back. Near as I can tell, we have an administration that only minds business windfalls if it reduces the amount they can seize for themselves.