The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he unilaterally imposed sweeping tariffs across the globe, a striking loss for the White House on an issue that has been central to the president’s foreign policy and economic agenda.

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 212 points 8 months ago (26 children)

So they are going to pay it back right?……….Right?

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 234 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    There are already lawsuits filed for refunds of tariff payments. Of course the money will go to the companies that made the payments. All of us who actually paid them by paying more for basically every consumer good are out of luck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 151 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Wealth transfer from labor to the ownership class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

    Companies that made the payments already sold their rights to this refunds to investment funds for cents on the dollar. Now the funds will make shitload of money. And guess who invested in all of it? Yes, people connected to Trump!

    https://www.wired.com/story/cantor-fitzgerald-trump-tariff-refunds/

    They straight out robbed everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Lmfao of course they had something like this set up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    Yet another outrageous wealth transfer... It's almost like a game to them at this point - how many ways can they extort the American taxpayer before they either run out of ideas or we put their heads on spikes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Or before everyone is so poor there's nothing left to steal.

    Remember all the SciFi movies from the 80s where the ruling class lives in skyscrapers and everyone else is fighting for survival in slums ruled by gangs? With militarized police murdering people left and right? Turns out people that came up with this were 100% right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    It this were a proper, well regulated capitalist marketplace with actual competition, the company that sold you the widget might offer you a rebate on your next order so that they could keep your business. But, when your only real option is Amazon, they know you're not going anywhere, so they'll keep the tariff repayment and just wait for your next order.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago

    There's always the chance Costco gives its customers something. They have records of everything purchased by members. Every other company, I wouldn't hold my breath. These tariffs have cost companies a lot in paperwork as well.

    Maybe commercial clients who have bought something really substantial will get something refunded.

    That's all if Trump's government complies, which he's previously said it wouldn't. He'll make another excuse or appeal it until he's gone, making it someone else's problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    So...

    ... yeah...

    According to the Fed, as of early-mid Jan 2026, you're looking at $287 billion dollars of total Trump tariff revenue.

    https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/macro_minute/2026/how_much_revenue_raised_by_tariffs_so_far

    Also, over the last year, into this one, the Treasury has been massively expanding its General Account, which is functionally the checking account of the Federal Government.

    Its around $900 billion right now.

    Normally its more like several hundred billion, 200 b, 300 b.

    Why is it so large right now?

    Well, because the Treasury (Bessent) has decided to just massively shift as much of the Gov's debt refinancing as possible, over to... short term debt issuance, like, 1 Year T bills and even shorter duration notes.

    Like uh, just a few days ago, the Gov issued (refinanced) around $212 billion of debt.

    So yeah, we had a one day debt rollover that... rivals the entire size of the Treasury General Account basically pre-covid.

    Every 5 days (business week), the US Gov is refinancing roughly $600 billion of debt.

    ... what I am trying to say is that even if the treasury were to somehow pay back around $300 billion of illegal tariff revenue...

    Well, that would take a while.

    Because the Treasury doesn't have the margin to do that.

    ... It could very well be the case that Fed would have to print money, to buy the T Bills, so the money in the TGA... could repay the ... tariffs.

    That latest $212 billion rollover ?

    The Fed had to print, poof into existence, $8 billion of it. And thats without the Fed Gov trying to add another $300 billion into... some... kind of... payment plan?

    I don't know man, I'm an econometrician by training, but... to my knowledge nothing comparable to this has ever happened before.

    This is not looking so good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    Pay who back? All the citizens this administration fleeced?

    If corporations are paid back they aren't going to give refunds to all of their costumers they directly forwarded these costs to.

    We all got fucked. Trump fucked us, as well as his own supporters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago*

    To some corporations I'm sure. Not to the consumers that actually paid the cost of them. A lot of corporations bought surplus before tariffs went into effect. Then they raised prices as if the Tariffs were affecting them instantly. Now some will surely get pay backs and double dip in the profits.

    This has been and always will be a tax on the consumer and the working class. It is nothing but capital consolidation methods and class warfare. Those loyal to Trump get exclusions and profit from the Tariffs. Those that do not are hurt (all small business and some larger corps that don't play ball).

    It is a means of solidifying loyalty to the fascist state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 103 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

    So let me get this straight, the companies that raised their prices based on Trump's tariffs get to apply for a refund with no requirement to lower prices and pass that refund on to the consumers who actually had to pony up the money at the 'cash register' every day. Once again, corporations get an undeserved bailout while the American consumer gets shafted. Typical.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Don't worry, it will trickle down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 51 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    At his White House news conference, Trump announced alternative options, including an immediate 10% global tariff.

    Lol, the US is a clown show.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 99 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Too little too late supreme court. There's no one left to enforce the decision.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's not really a matter of timing. If this ruling had come out a year ago, it's not like there were enforcers ready to go. As soon as Trump took over he made sure that nothing in the executive branch was going to stand in his way. And his toadies in the legislative branch have been rolling over for him since the inauguration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 42 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    I mean, as much of a fucking mess this is going to cause, and as much as they should have said this a year ago, this is still very good news as far as I am concerned. Bare minimum, all the tarriffs currently in place by Trump are canceled going forward and it's going to be a while before anything analogous can be put back into place.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's not all the tariffs, just the ones he justified using the 1977 Emergency Act. So of course, now he'll use another justification, and it'll take SC(R)OTUS another year to rule on those.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago*

    If this was the fastest they could rule an executive action unconstitutional, it's proof they need to adjust the process so they can do it faster.

    Not that I think this Supreme Court is acting in good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Incorrect.

    Only a subset of tariffs were ruled illegal. Mostly because of the method they were declared with.

    Others are, as of now, perfectly legal and will remain in place. And expect many of these to just be declared in a different manner to maintain them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    I'm shocked! SHOCKED I tell you!

    I am. Sincerely, I'm shocked. This is quite the surprise.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    It's not the 6-3 ruling I expected at all. Was fully thinking would be 6-3 that it was okay for him to do it not saying he can't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago

    “They have made their ruling, now let us see them enforce it.”

    Now several companies will sue my government for damages.

    yaaaaay

  • source
  • [–] 77 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Important to note that the ruling just says Trump exceeded his authority in setting the tariffs, not that the tariffs themselves were illegal/unconstitutional. That means that Congress can authorize Trump to continue doing this. The question is whether Mike Johnson and John Thune have the numbers to pass that law. They already both quashed efforts to curb Trump's authority before.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not too worried about additional tariffs passing through congress, though. That would have been the safer approach to try from the beginning if Trump's people thought they could make it work. They opted for this workaround loophole nonsense specifically to go around congress because they had already ruled out the possibility of congressional approval.

    I just don't think Trump could ever manage to get enough support from congress. Certainly not with how unpopular the tariffs currently are, and certainly not right before the midterms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    But wouldn't it be delightful if he actually tried, because that's the only thing left to do and he can't possibly give up on the tariffs?

    That's his one signature economic policy. Without tariffs, he's got nothing. Even though they are unpopular, he still claims they just need more time, you'll see how marvelous life is going to be when he hands the tariff checks to every household in America.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    He absolutely does not have the numbers to get this through congress. Across the aisle repubs and dems are mostly pro-business, pro-trade, and these tariffs don't make an ounce of sense to any of them. Some GOP goons would vote for it just to make Trump happy, but way too many would rather protect their wealthy donors than protect the President. There's not a lot of political future in making the Waltons unhappy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Across the aisle repubs and dems are mostly pro-business, pro-trade

    Well, plenty of the MAGA republicans are pro-tectionist more than they are pro-trade. If he'd tried to pass new tariffs on day 1 of his administration there's a chance that they might have had enough votes to do it. But, that was the slow way that required negotiating and compromise.

    Now that people have seen just how awful the tariffs are, I think a lot of the MAGA republicans wouldn't pass the legislation. They could have claimed ignorance before the tariffs passed, but now it's hard for them to argue with a straight face that they'll be good for America.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    That’s fine, sort of. Maybe we’re all just traumatized by violating constitution, checks and balances, the rule of law, but I’d welcome the improvement if they were evil legally

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It doesn't matter. Remember all those times when Trump & Co set a tariff percentage, then lowered it a few weeks later? I wonder why? Maybe somebody made a "donation" to his bitcoin account. He got what he wanted.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago

    So the Supreme Court finally found out what we all already knew?

    But a few of them clearly still haven't gotten the memo?

    I mean I'm trying to be happy about this news, but it's kind of just more proof how pathetic and corrupt our SC is.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago

    An actual useful court should've made this ruling on day 1

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago*

    As if that'll stop the orange nonce.

    While him and his enablers suffer no consequences then he is defacto above the law

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago
    [–] 55 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Another illegal {insert thing here}?

    Oh, wow, is it time to arrest and charge?
    Or, will you do nothing just like the 7456 times the fat cunt broke your laws in the last year and you did fuck all?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    This seems like a job for drumroll+horns CHUCK SHUMER & HAKEEM JEFFRIES

    Dynamic duo of incompetence extraordinaire!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    "HAKEEM! get the paper! I'll get the pen and meet me in the cafeteria for another 'strongly worded letter' writing session!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    This criticism makes no sense. Articles of impeachment require a simple majority in the house and then a 2/3rds majority in the Sentate.

    The dems don't have the votes. Jeffries likely couldn't even get it to the house floor for a vote. Johnson wouldn't allow it.

    Like we can critize them for giving the Republicans their budget or about 1,000 other issues within their power, but this isn't something they can deliver. Unless a lot of Republicans suddenly grow a conscience

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    Good, but prices continue to rise every time the orange dumbfuck yaps about tariffs.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 8 months ago (16 children)

    Whoa.

    Well, I bet my pants that Justice Clarence Thomas is a dissenting opinion. Does it say in the article?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 8 months ago* (12 children)

    There's only one way to find out: ask people what's in the article.

    Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined with Roberts and the three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    It's always the ones you most suspect. You could probably be closely aligned with the constitution without knowing a single thing about the law by just always taking the opposite position from whatever Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I must admit I've been surprised by how independent of Trump Amy Coney Barrett has wound up being. She's ruled against him a few times now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I just wanted to guess before I read it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Can something so certain legitimately be called a guess anymore?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    "Supreme Court justices should be [terrible thing, deadly, obviously bad outcome for them]"

    Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I still think Barrett, a person who had almost no courtroom experience before being appointed, was a shitty appointment. But she's turned out slightly less shitty than I anticipated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    oh neat. so that means this ruling will be enforced right? ....right?

    of course it won't. it's another dog and pony show from the US.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    The Supreme Court sided with business over the US government. No surprise there. According to the law this whole action was illegal. I am surprised it was not unanimous and had three dissenters.

    Where in the fuck do companies get off thinking the tariffs, paid by consumer, is going to be refunded to them!?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    3 comments in c/politics@beehaw.org view that post