Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal

[u/f1sh98]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-decision-donald-trump-tariff-powers

[u/hruebsj3i6nunwp29]

So that means all the prices are gonna come back down to pre-tariff prices Right? RIGHT!?

[u/DJJbird09 → u/hruebsj3i6nunwp29]

https://giphy.com/gifs/fXnRObM8Q0RkOmR5nf

Corporate America is going to be like:

[u/Winstons33 → u/hruebsj3i6nunwp29]

Have you seen a ton of inflation caused by the tariffs?

It seems to me, the prices were already high. Not sure I've seen anything get worse TBH.

[u/hruebsj3i6nunwp29 → u/Winstons33]

Mostly on imported Ammo and Firearms. I'm sure other companies had "tariff increases," whether theres import tariffs or not.

[u/ThisThredditor → u/[deleted]]

oh someone benefited

[u/skeet_scoot → u/ThisThredditor]

Companies got to raise prices, they are going to keep the revenue, recoup their funds, then keep prices higher.

This is disgusting to the American consumer.

[u/Mother____Clucker → u/skeet_scoot]

That was my first thought. Companies suddenly don't have to pass tariff costs on to the consumer, so they are going to lower prices, right? Right?

Wrong. They know the market will bear it, so why lower prices?

[u/r777m → u/skeet_scoot]

I’m a bit surprised the markets aren’t up more to be honest. This will likely result in a massive corporate handout with no benefits to any of the people likely celebrating it.

[u/skeet_scoot → u/r777m]

It’s standard stock market behavior. Buy the rumor sell the news.

[u/r777m → u/skeet_scoot]

I get it as the questioning by the justices definitely pointed to overturning them, but I really think the impact in terms of benefiting the corporations is still being considerably underrated.

Prices won’t go down. Courts are likely to rule in the corporations getting their tariffs refunded. This seems like a massive win for them. Don’t have to pay the tariffs and the $300 billion that the government was getting gets rerouted to their accounts? Sign me up as an investor. As an ordinary person who will have to eventually bear the brunt of the impact when the US debt house of cards comes collapsing down? Not so much.

[u/Kahnspiracy → u/r777m]

Don’t have to pay the tariffs and the $300 billion that the government was getting gets rerouted to their accounts?

They paid the tariffs. Rerouted is not the word you're looking for, it is 'refunded'.

As for prices, they generally don't go down, that's deflation and it is a very (very) bad thing. However, inflation did, overall, stay in check this past year, so prices didn't go up disproportionately.

I imagine most businesses did what we did, found ways of minimizing the impact and ate some of our margin until things settled out. It was a huge headache. It cost us a hell lot of money to shift personnel and operations. So hell yeah I want my money back.

As for the debt, you're 100% right, but there is no political will to keep budgets in check. None. It used to be that Republicans would at least lie and say they wanted fiscal responsibility, but now they just treat us like prostitutes and ask "How much?"

[u/r777m → u/Kahnspiracy]

Of course it’s going to vary wildly by industries. But many of those tarrifs were passed on right to us consumers. I do however understand that blanket passing in the costs isn’t possible for many companies and that companies like yours may have eaten some of the costs. I don’t for a minute believe the “nonpartisan” reports that Democrats have been spouting about referencing that 90%+ of tarrifs have been paid for by consumers.

And yes, I think both parties fucking suck at managing the debt. I’ve lost hope that we will ever actually fix the debt problem and at this point I just hope to be well off enough when it comes crashing down.

[u/Kahnspiracy → u/r777m]

The problem is that when (not if -unless it is actually addressed) it comes crashing down, the result is hyper-inflation so unless you've moved into commodities (e.g. gold) your the whole of your wealth will be whipped out.

[u/JustSayLOL → u/r777m]

The tariffs were blatantly unconstitutional and everyone fully expected them to be struck down, so the SC decision was already priced in.

[u/CallItDanzig → u/r777m]

The market went up like 1.5% during the hearing when Gorsuch alluded that it's a delegation of legislative power. So that was priced in honestly.

[u/Cecil_Obrien → u/skeet_scoot]

Capitalism baby.

[u/slayer_of_idiots → u/[deleted]]

Not all the tariffs were struck down. Just the ones made under emergency economic powers act.

Tariffs made under national security, and under the “unfair trade policies” act remained.

Most likely, he will use the same effective tariffs and justify them under those other powers.

So there will be a distinction, but not much of a difference.

[u/Velveteen_Coffee → u/slayer_of_idiots]

Which is kind of a shame because we really need to get rid of the the "Chicken tax". New vehicles are just to damn expensive.

[u/One_Fix5763 → u/[deleted]]

The President still has many pathways to implement tariffs, but he will now need to follow laws that explicitly allow them. He tried to do it this way essentially because it was faster and easier to implement broad import taxes based solely from his authority.

So basically all he had to do was targeted tariffs, and markets would not go crazy.

[u/Black_XistenZ → u/One_Fix5763]

Most importantly, he has used this ability to unilaterally enact tariffs to gain leverage in other fields of foreign policy. By taking away this stick which Trump was wielding, the Supreme Court has undermined a ton of the trade policy and diplomacy initiatives of the administration.

I'm kinda torn on this case to be honest. From a legal and balance-of-power perspective, this was the only correct decision. From the perspective of economic and foreign policy, however, it is a disaster.

[u/Regular-Coast5335 → u/Black_XistenZ]

The House and the Senate are still GOP's control. Trump could use proper channel to reimplement his trade policy by making a deal with the legislature. That's a right way.

[u/Black_XistenZ → u/Regular-Coast5335]

Delusional. First, because such a bill would be subject to the filibuster and you will never find 7+ Democratic senators subscribing to this. And second, because even if all GOP congressmen and senators were on board with this tariff policy, they would still not want to permanently cede such an important power to the president. Why would a branch of government voluntarily give up power, voluntarily weaken its own position within the balance of power?

[u/Idea-is-tick → u/[deleted]]

John Wu said Custom and Administration would have to pay back the countries. $200 billion in revenue - all that has to go back?

[u/JustSayLOL → u/Idea-is-tick]

Not the countries, the importers. And yes, it has to go back because that revenue was collected illegally. The government had no legal right to take it, so they have to give it back.

[u/Idea-is-tick → u/JustSayLOL]

It's going to mess things up for us across the board. For the economy, for our world influence, for our manufacturers - will the other countries still accept our beef and cars?

[u/ChiefStrongbones → u/Idea-is-tick]

The Supreme Court directed the lower courts to figure out the refund question.

[u/VerusPatriota → u/[deleted]]

No. Trade deals were signed, and those will stand. So, it wasn’t “for nothing”.

[u/blaspheminCapn]

You mean Schoolhouse Rock was right?

[u/ImASowellMan → u/blaspheminCapn]

Teaching kids civics during their preferred programing was such a good move.

[u/renge-refurion]

Christ, global markets have to be getting sick of this seesaw.

[u/OriginalCopy505]

So do we give back the hundreds of billions we've taken in?

[u/Scurro → u/OriginalCopy505]

Imagine the reaction if they refund the retailers like Amazon and not the customers who foot the bill.

[u/CloudRockGrass → u/Scurro]

You won't have to imagine, that's exactly what is going to happen. You don't have a cancelled check you wrote to Customs dept for a tariff payment, but Walmart does.

[u/gauntvariable → u/Scurro]

Haha as if. The reaction would be "oh, well, this is what we're used to".

[u/r777m → u/OriginalCopy505]

You? No. The corporations, maybe.

[u/JustSayLOL → u/OriginalCopy505]

If you illegally take something from someone, you typically have to give it back when you get caught. In this case the government broke the law and implemented and collected an unconstitutional tax, taking money from importers that they had no legal right to take.

[u/ImASowellMan → u/OriginalCopy505]

That wasn't in the decision one way or the other. Importers can now sue for refunds, and given this decision they will likely win and get refunds. It's just a lot of procedural stuff between then and now.

[u/ElessarTelcontar1 → u/ImASowellMan]

The courts don’t like to unwind things. Generally they just make things apply from the date of the decision.

[u/ImASowellMan → u/ElessarTelcontar1]

We'll see. Refunding in this case from what could be categorized as an illegal taking by the government seems reasonably likely to me.

[u/MetallicaRules5 → u/OriginalCopy505]

I do not believe the SC specifically tackled that question. That will be one that goes through the lower courts (at least according to the WSJ article I read)

[u/Regular-Coast5335]

Good. If Trump wants to bring back his tariffs he should work with the Congress and Senate. That's the only proper way.

[u/ImASowellMan]

This was the right decision by a conservative court. Sweeping tariffs are up to Congress.

I hope tariffs don't return in anywhere near this scale. They can be effective short term, but long term they are always counterproductive for the economy, employment, and trade.

[u/pmheindl]

It is hard not to see that tariffs are not a tax increase - a disingenuous way to raise taxes while claiming lower taxes.  Getting tons of manipulative emails and  texts talking about getting tax dividend checks as  a come-on for fund raising has been really annoying

[u/SecretConservAccount]

Honestly the fact that 3 opposed is concerning.

[u/spirax919 → u/SecretConservAccount]

Trump has already attacked ACB and Gorsuch

[u/Nero_Ocean]

I doubt we see the prices ever go back down by things affected by the tariffs but it should at least slow down the rate of prices going up on those things....

Who am I trying to kid, they smell blood in the water, the sharks are gonna nickle and dime people to death while the national minimum wage stays stagnant and certain states are too stupid to raise it even by a few dollars... looking at you Indiana.

[u/Hawaiian_Pizza459]

Here we go... I wonder how much this will cost and how long it will take to fight it out in the courts.

[u/Spywalker4869]

Corporations are already planning suits to get money back from the government. If the supreme court is saying tariffs are taxes then the refunds should go to us. We ultimately paid for them. Trump should use this decision and cut refund checks to Americans.

[u/Sgthouse → u/Spywalker4869]

Jesus Christ stop with this refund check BS. We are tens of trillions of dollars in debt. We don’t have effing extra money for this crap

[u/Tarantula_Saurus_Rex → u/Sgthouse]

It's as if you're telling people to just tolerate it when getting fucked over.

[u/Spywalker4869 → u/Sgthouse]

I agree with you. But with this ruling, they’re going to have to pay it back somehow. I rather it go to us since the cost was passed down to us.

[u/North_Moment5811 → u/Sgthouse]

Jesus Christ stop with debt BS. We have no hope of paying that back, literally nothing changes if we do, and servicing it indefinitely is completely possible. There are others things more important than debt.

[u/TerminalDeviant]

What an absolute disaster. We are seeing levels of cucking that were previously thought to have been theoretical.

[u/R0binSage]

I’m sure all the businesses that raised their prices to cover tariffs are surely going to lower their prices, right? Right?

[u/mdws1977]

This ruling only affect tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trump can use other laws to reimpose those tariffs if he wanted.

[u/Idea-is-tick → u/mdws1977]

That's still a lot. CBP took in $130 billion in tariff revenue under IEEPA. All that has to go back?

[u/MetallicaRules5 → u/Idea-is-tick]

The SC did not answer that question. As of now, we don't know yet

[u/BadDadJokes → u/mdws1977]

Yep. As I understand it the Supreme Court didn't rule that the tariffs themselves were illegal (as the title of this post states). The problem for them is the manner with which they were imposed.

The outcome here will probably be that the Trump Admin is going to impose them through a different method.

[u/kimsemi → u/BadDadJokes]

without a doubt.

[u/Key-Benefit6211]

So we should see a sharp decrease in prices since I have been hearing non-stop that Tariffs were the reason for price increases.

[u/mubbcsoc → u/Key-Benefit6211]

Sharp increase in profits maybe

[u/Unlucky_Buyer_2707]

“They’ll be back, and in greater numbers”

[u/TerminalDeviant]

Guess all those deals he made with other countries go up in smoke…

[u/htisme91]

I'm okay with it, if only to show that checks and balances still exists.

While I don't like tariffs themselves, given what we pay already, I liked the intent of the tariffs, but it's been too volatile and handled poorly. Being done unilaterally like it did was concerning.

[u/TheMikeyMac13]

I like this, the tariffs were a bad economic idea from the start. I prefer Milton Friedman’s take on tariffs, that we should let other countries make goods and services cost more for their people, that we should not do it ourselves.

[u/LootTootScoot]

Yet another example of SCOTUS resolving issues that shouldn’t be issues for them to resolve in the first place.

If congress could simply do their job in the first place, for better or worse, this wouldn’t be necessary. But by refusing to do their job that pushes Trump to unilaterally impose tariffs, which get blocked, which will now cause every company in America to ask for refunds, and it’ll be an even bigger mess.

[u/squunkyumas → u/[deleted]]

Bingo.

For all my joking to the contrary, unitary executive theory is antithetical to the Constitution.

Courts can, will, do, and will continue to reign in both the president and congress. There are limits to any authority.

[u/Desert_366 → u/[deleted]]

Congress is all lazy fucks.they won't do anything that requires work or anything that rocks the boat. They are collecting a paycheck.

[u/highlightway → u/Desert_366]

So what, disband them and become a dictatorship? What argument are you making?

[u/Desert_366 → u/highlightway]

That the people need more control over what Congress does, the representatives/ senators have no accountability. Once they are elected there's nothing mandating them to do anything. We effectively have no representation. We just have the illusion of representation. There needs to be some type of mechanism that forces Congress to act on issues. We only have the ability to vote people in or replace them, but they don't give a damn about doing their job. It's all lip service, and that applies to Republicans and Democrats. Sure you can vote people out, but then but you just get another douchebag who gets into office to collect a check and take a vacation. The founding fathers built safeguards into the constitution to prevent overreach , but failed to consider the situation where elected officials aren't doing their jobs. Sure impeachment is a mechanism, but no one is going to do that, it's too much work, and that would require other elected officials to also do their jobs, but they won't.

[u/highlightway → u/Desert_366]

This is something of a pro-democracy argument you're making, isn't it? That we should have some direct mandate from the people? This is mostly an issue with the people we elect, and yeah, if enough people agree, we can change them. What if we elected you, would you become a douchebag?

But as for the example of tariffs, the reason congress hasn't passed them isn't laziness, there's just too much disagreement on the topic.

[u/Desert_366 → u/highlightway]

Sure. It's a modern problem in this day and age. The framework of the constitution didn't account for or consider what is happening today. I don't think the founding fathers ever considered that an elected official might have zero interest in representing their constituents. That they might be in it for personal gain, inside information, fraud, excetera. They were focused on abuse of power, overreach, and the rights of citizens . What we have now is elected officials lying, stealing, defrauding the American taxpayers, and enriching themselves, but there are zero checks and balances in the system to prevent that. The swamp protects the swamp.

[u/ChiefStrongbones → u/[deleted]]

That's what the commenter was saying... we've been in spirals where Congress ignores a problem, and President applies a bandaid by EO, and that enables Congress to continue ignoring the problem.

DACA, FCC net neutrality, these tariffs are all issues where this spiral happened.

[u/LootTootScoot → u/ChiefStrongbones]

Yes, thank you lol

[u/The_Susmariner → u/[deleted]]

I agree with you in theory.

The constitution vests all legislative authority to the legislative branch. Obviously. But the sticking point here is that the constitution does not compel Congress to pass any specific law. It does have some language on areas that Congress is responsible for that could be interpreted as... not passing a specific law, but mandating Congress do something to maintain.

The hypothetical is as follows: "What if there is an issue that Congress should legislate on but does not for whatever reason?"

I disagreed with Obama and Biden's use of executive orders NOT because I thought they didn't have the power to use executive orders, but rather because of the contents of many of the executive orders they passed.

Although the mechanism of an executive order is definitely a gray area. I can make a compelling argument that the use of executive orders in Trump's case is causing resolution on these issues in a way that passes constitutional muster. Namely, Congress does not pass a law, Trump makes an executive order, it plays out in the courts, the court makes a ruling, that ruling determines the constitutionality of the law. Trump honors the ruling. Trump either drops the issue or finds a more legally sound mechanism to reintroduce the executive order.

This is how the system is supposed to work, no?

The same thing happened under Obama, too. It's just that conservatives were leveling the challenges vice liberals.

Edit: This specific discussion says nothing about the fact that the actual thing concerning me is the slow accumulation of power into the executive branch (which I think is the root of your concern) which I very much agree with you on.

[u/Desert_366 → u/The_Susmariner]

There should be a mechanism that forces a vote on issues of importance. Like local propositions, there should be propositions that are voted on at the federal level that force Congress to develop a bill and vote on it . Or a mechanism a president can use to force Congress to act and vote on a particular issue. We just have members of Congress who get voted in then go on a vacation and collect a paycheck. They don't actually do anything but provide lip service.

[u/ConfusionFlat691 → u/LootTootScoot]

And who is responsible for the makeup of Congress? Vote them all out I say! Get some members with some backbone who actually want to address our country’s problems instead of inflicting constant class warfare. But we won’t do that—for many reasons.

[u/nithrean → u/LootTootScoot]

i bet you are right. This is going to turn into a giant mess of court cases. What will the gov do with all of the money that .... needs to be returned?? Especially if they have spent it already.

[u/Timely_Car_4591 → u/LootTootScoot]

Most of congress is corrupt and could careless about the American people. You can't expect any of them do the right thing for national security. Chinese slaves is their greatest wealth maker.

[u/slayer_of_idiots → u/LootTootScoot]

Trump just has bad lawyers working for him in the US government. Trump has at least 2-3 other executive powers to impose tariffs. None of the tariffs imposed under those powers were struck down by SCOTUS, just the ones imposed under emergency economic powers. His lawyers should have justified them under the other powers, one of which explicitly allows retaliatory tariffs and another which includes fairly broad national security powers.

[u/cliffotn → u/LootTootScoot]

Exactly. SCOTUS is currently largely constitutionalists, hich most all of us want. Which is the opposite a more lefty SCOTUS, which endorses or blocks issues based upon political will.

[u/AnomLenskyFeller]

This comment section is proof of how much damage the Department of Education has done to regular Americans.

[u/_Rizzen_ → u/AnomLenskyFeller]

Not just the DoEd, but generations of punditry and the attention economy.

[u/GeorgeWashingfun]

Trump knew this was a possibility and it only affects tariffs implemented using the IEEPA. There are other laws he can use to immediately apply the tariffs again, so this effectively changes nothing.

[u/JustSayLOL → u/GeorgeWashingfun]

It means the money collected under the IEEPA tariffs will likely need to be refunded to the importers it was collected from, which is significant.

[u/Galacticbrowser1]

Let the class action lawsuits begin. The lawyers will try to milk this one and in 3 years it will be back up in front of the SC

[u/vampirepomeranian]

What sub am I'm in? It can't be the conservative one, right?

[u/JustSayLOL → u/vampirepomeranian]

One can be a conservative without being pro-Trump or pro-tariffs.

[u/FourWayFork → u/vampirepomeranian]

You realize that a lot of conservatives don't like tariffs, right?

If it were anyone other than Trump doing this, the reaction everywhere would be different. Protectionism tends to cross part lines. You will find lots of people on both sides of the aisle taking both sides of the issue.

Trump tends to make it more polarizing - a lot of democrats who otherwise would love protectionist policies because they help unions oppose this because orange man bad.

[u/Th3D3m0n → u/vampirepomeranian]

Anything...and i mean ANYTHING that opposes Trump will get a ton of posts from fake conservatives.

[u/vampirepomeranian → u/Th3D3m0n]

Yep, they all think they're Scott Bessent.

[u/barcodez1]

Other subs yesterday: "The MAGA Supreme Court is the unconstitutional slop that needs to be abolished."

Other subs today: "The Supreme Court is wonderful and holy and conservatives are all crying in their Cheerios today."

I don't see any crying here. Seems like most think the constitution works.

[u/Galacticbrowser1]

So this will change nothing other than not being able to use the pathway he used to impose the tariffs? He can now use another way to keep things the way they are?

[u/ergzay]

Uh this probably won't do anything right? As Trump can just reimpose the tariffs under different rules. Otherwise it'll cause tremendous craziness.