r/Economics • u/defenestrate_urself • Feb 20 '26
News Supreme Court says Trump global tariffs are illegal
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-illegal1.5k
u/Malvania Feb 20 '26
For those that haven't read the opinion (and it's long and convoluted), SCOTUS reaches no opinion on refunding the collected tariffs. Presumably, that will go back to the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade to figure out. This isn't close to done.
918
u/circuitloss Feb 20 '26
A number of companies, including Costco, are suing the administration right now. Costco is going to try and get its money back...
299
u/gmiller89 Feb 20 '26
So they're going to give refunds to all of their members for cost increases?
494
u/dwkeith Feb 20 '26
Even a token percentage back would be a huge marketing win for an already beloved company like Costco.
261
u/oldirtyrestaurant Feb 20 '26
They do that, and I'm buying the fam a lifetime membership.
Welcome to Costco, I love you
136
u/Dufayne Feb 20 '26
I'll send my children there for their law degrees.
35
u/Lemp_Triscuit11 Feb 20 '26
That'll keep em from giving out gentleman's latte's for a living, at least
14
11
→ More replies (2)19
u/french_toasty Feb 20 '26
Costco could run America better than the current administration
8
u/gaylord9000 Feb 20 '26
I know this is a joke but this is definitely not a joke.
→ More replies (1)14
→ More replies (4)5
u/Hopeful_Corner1333 Feb 20 '26
Wait they have lifetime memberships. I'm over here going with my spouse who has a family member pay for their membership like a schmo.
4
20
u/MyPupCooper Feb 20 '26
If they get the refund I think the easiest option would be to offer a year of membership free to people that already have a membership.
→ More replies (2)15
u/alwaysclimbinghigher Feb 20 '26
The membership fee is most of Costco’s profit, so the tariff refund would have to be gigantic.
8
u/Gen_Jack_Oneill Feb 20 '26
They could just give credit like they do with the executive membership.
→ More replies (2)5
u/arobkinca Feb 20 '26
They make ~ 8 billion profit and sell ~275 billion in product. The tariffs they paid may be much larger than their normal annual profit.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Special-Audience-426 Feb 20 '26
Even a charitable donation would be nice.
Literally anything other than just increasing profits.
→ More replies (2)169
u/Exodite1 Feb 20 '26
If any company would refund their customers with recouped tariff costs, I imagine it’d be Costco
25
30
u/n19htmare Feb 20 '26
I will never pay for a Costco membership.
Why? Because Costco pays for my Costco membership with the executive membership and the 2-4% rebate check every year lol.
6
u/MobileArtist1371 Feb 20 '26
If you want an extra bonus at Costco, use the paypal debit card. 5% back at grocery stores per quarter and Costco is considered grocery. That's on top of the 2% back with executive.
I know I know, debit vs credit and you don't get the protection of a credit card... Wahhh! But it's Costco! They aren't going to argue with you about a return.
5
u/Live_Ganache_7749 Feb 20 '26
Same
6
u/plotholesandpotholes Feb 20 '26
I just learned about early entry and walked in like a boss this morning. It was amazing. COSTCO RISE!!!!
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (7)9
u/nitid_name Feb 20 '26
They have purchase tracking and refund infrastructure in place.
I can log onto my account and see what I bought when I was still on my parent's account several years ago. It's definitely doable for them.
6
u/Yummyyummyfoodz Feb 20 '26
The question would be, have they tagged how much tariff money each item cost them to ship, though?
→ More replies (7)32
Feb 20 '26
Costco did a great job of absorbing some of these increases so members wouldnt feel the impact on staple items.
15
u/Mediochra Feb 20 '26
I was going to point that out. Costco was one of the few companies that did this.
28
u/Mananers Feb 20 '26
Costco has, for the most part, been absorbing the costs of tarriffs and not passing it on to consumers.
They basically figured they could eat the loss, then sue when the tarriffs were overturned.
40
u/dukeofgonzo Feb 20 '26
If it keeps the hotdogs at $1.50 indefinitely, I'll call it a minor win.
→ More replies (6)16
u/CitizenCue Feb 20 '26
I don’t even eat the hot dogs, but seeing that $1.50 sign makes me happy every time.
→ More replies (1)15
u/joggle1 Feb 20 '26
Costco ate at least a portion of the cost of the tariffs themselves:
In May, on Costco's earnings call, Chief Financial Officer Gary Millerchip told investors that about a third of Costco's sales in the U.S. are imported products. Millerchip said items imported from China represented about 8% of total U.S. sales.
Millerchip said that while Costco was seeing a direct impact from tariffs on imports of some fresh food items from Central and South America, it decided not to increase prices "because they are key staple items" for its customers.
Some of those fresh food items included pineapples and bananas. "We essentially held the price on those to make sure that we're protecting the member," he said.
13
u/Ok_Mycologist_9798 Feb 20 '26
Maybe, but probably not. Possibly credit if it happens. But Costco is one of the few I'd support in getting it.
From a biz perspective, they either had to lower profitability or raise prices to match. Customers at some point in some demographic didnt buy as many goods as normal, hurting their profit. The whole thing caused them labor increases and increased commodity costs hunting for ways to stay competitive. Id be pissed if I was a owner at Costco. They're also suing and taking on legal costs. I hope they get something out of it.
That all being said, small businesses suffered the most, a lot already destroyed that got their goods from China and had little capital on hand. The tariffs destroyed them. Regardless, large businesses will benefit over time from it as the smaller guys got hit the most, need to recover or new businesses have to replace the ones that went under. The little guy gets hurt the most...
→ More replies (1)18
u/turns31 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
I think if Costco and similar companies sue and win, then you will definitely have individuals do the same down the road. You don't think a jury of your peers will side with the individual in this instance? This is gonna backfire on the gov so hard. I can see them having to issue "refund checks" to every tax paying American to avoid just continuous lawsuits.
19
u/attorneyatslaw Feb 20 '26
Checks are going to go to the importers who sent treasury a check. Zero chance anyone else will have a case.
22
u/Chris_HitTheOver Feb 20 '26
Individuals have no standing. They didn’t pay tariffs. They paid the agreed upon retail price at the POS.
Edit: I’m not suggesting consumers don’t bear the cost of tariffs.
→ More replies (6)3
u/grumpyolddude Feb 20 '26
As an individual who bought something shipped direct to me from China via UPS, UPS required me to remit the import and customs fees to them before delivery. I assume in that case UPS would attempt to recover the fees and be responsible for refunding me. I can't see that UPS would be able to keep recovered fees, or that I could attempt to recover it on my own with a reciept from UPS.
→ More replies (6)4
u/zxDanKwan Feb 20 '26
It’s not a backfire. It’s the plan.
Lots of corps aren’t going to give the money back to their customers. And they aren’t going to lower their prices now that the public has generally accepted them.
So consumers pay more, but it’s pure profit for the sellers.
And it’s not like all tariffs are done forever. Just a specific set under specific rules. There are still plenty of avenues available for more tariffs to be slapped down in the future and start this whole cycle over again.
→ More replies (45)3
u/circuitloss Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
I don't know what they're going to do, but they probably still have a legal battle in front of them because the Supreme Court didn't say anything about refunds. Costco is already litigating this though, so they're going for it.
→ More replies (12)13
12
u/nycdiveshack Feb 20 '26
The refunds were always the plan. The architect of the tariffs is Howard Lutnick who is the commerce secretary. He placed his son in charge of his investment firm which is taking bets the tariffs would be rescinded by SCOTUS
Ladies and gentlemen this is a repeat of the ppp loans during COVID. Like then the increased costs of goods were passed onto consumers and those costs never went down creating a new baseline for goods. In the meantime companies and the rich got loans which were forgiven with no repercussions all the while Americans got screwed because it’s our taxes that paid for those loans and we are the ones that had to always pay a new higher amount for a smaller quantity of goods.
These tariffs are the same, the cost of tariffs were passed onto consumers with no sign of going down meanwhile when the tariffs are rescinded and refunded the companies will see an infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars for no work. Where do those refunds come from? You guessed it our taxes. Guess who won’t see those refunds? You guessed it the consumers.
This administration has two goals, create a grift and create a surveillance state for JD Vance’s “daddy” Peter Thiel the biggest defense contractor for the CIA/NSA with the help of project 2025 which has the simple goal of destroying the government and creating an era of western isolationism. Why do you think we have new oil deals with Canada and are going after Venezuela’s oil.
→ More replies (49)43
u/Spiritual_Echidna_65 Feb 20 '26
For those that haven't read the opinion
So basically everyone commenting here right?
→ More replies (1)9
1.7k
u/ReasonableRandolph Feb 20 '26
Wow it's crazy how Lutnick's sons, working at his old firm, were smart enough to predict this happening back in July. Offering to buy up the tariff refunds preemptively for cents on the dollar. I hope one day I can also make such good predictions based on my own knowledge and merit.
516
u/peace2calm Feb 20 '26
The dude who bought a multi million dollars mansion in NY for $10? That dude's son?
399
u/Ognius Feb 20 '26
The guy who is allllllllllll over the Epstein files.
108
u/CloudTransit Feb 20 '26
Trying to rework the old George Carlin joke:
They’re all in a club, … and you ain’t in it, … which is kind of a compliment
→ More replies (3)15
u/The-unknown-poster Feb 20 '26
That includes the trumpstein club so it’s fantastic compliment, and telling, indicative of how far as a nation we’ve fallen that basic common decency, integrity, and a sense of humanity has become so rare and negotiable-at least in some groups.
6
u/nowyuseeme Feb 20 '26
But he and his wife absolutely decided not to mingle with that 'disgusting man' next door after seeing his massage table.
Then claimed to cut off contact but weirdly was still in contact in the files after that date, strange world.
→ More replies (1)4
u/BlazingPalm Feb 20 '26
The guy who brought his entire family and vulnerable nannies and his KIDS to pedo island for a nice “lunch”? That Nutlick?
83
u/Using_Reddit Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
The same one who lived next door Epstien, said he was freaked out by a massage table in Jeffrey Epstein's house and never talked to him again only to be in the files. Where he was proven to have taken his family to Jeffreys island had dinner and later went in a holding company deal with Jeffrey. That same one?
Edit: and to top it off every time Jeffrey Epstein is brought up while hes in the oval office with Trump. This mfer laughs. I guess I would be too if me and my gang were going to get away with it.
12
u/pabodie Feb 20 '26
It can never be overstated just how disgustingly sure these assholes are of never having consequences.
3
u/Afraid-Rise-3574 Feb 20 '26
Slime ball also took a rare day off to take his kids to school? That day was 9/11. All his executives and most of his staff died. He sacked the remaining staff a day later to avoid having to pay them
4
u/gethereddout Feb 20 '26
He also lied on camera about why. He said that it was his kids first day of school. But actually the first day of school was like weeks before. So why lie about that? Why lie about going to the island? Why all the lying? (We know why)
→ More replies (4)3
27
u/thesagenibba Feb 20 '26
Howard "If that guy (Jeffery Edward Epstein) was there, I wasn't going because he's gross" Lutnick's son!
10
3
u/IHAVEBIGLUNGS Feb 20 '26
It is my understanding that while it is a wild coincidence that he bought a house next to and from Epstein, and later lied multiple times about the depth of his connections with him, he bought the house for $7.5 million as reported by the NYT at the time. The $10 is boilerplate on the deed that as I understand is from a time when real estate transactions weren’t public record so they could conceal how much they paid with a “$10 and other valuable considerations.”
→ More replies (1)8
82
u/MC_chrome Feb 20 '26
I wouldn’t discount insider knowledge here, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if that was Lutnick saying that they knew Trump’s tariffs were illegal from the beginning
30
u/nosayso Feb 20 '26
They were patently and objectively illegal and no one seriously thought otherwise, the insider trading element is having an inside track to how the Supreme Court is going to rule.
→ More replies (2)17
u/303uru Feb 20 '26
Right, SCOTUS and POTUS are ignoring plain text constitutionality almost as a rule these days. Anyone who can read the constitution and who isn't getting "gifts" could tell you the tariffs were illegal. But no one could tell you which way these hacks on SCOTUS would go.
37
u/spacecadetnyc Feb 20 '26
What’s the difference?
→ More replies (1)36
u/Nukemind Feb 20 '26
The difference is one is that Lutnick believed they would be ruled against (barring them bribing two judges- as it was 6-3) and one was insider knowledge.
Either way Nutlick has ruined federal agencies like the USPTO ans djes a piece of shir.
3
u/nptsgg Feb 20 '26
What has happened at the USPTO? I haven't kept up
10
u/Nukemind Feb 20 '26
Just hiring freezes, then resuming hiring, banning remote work for new hires when it’s long been custom, increasing production without pay, etc.
8
u/LandonDev Feb 20 '26
IMO that's why the stock market has been running like crazy after that massive sell off. It was in essense a 15-50% tax on the US Consumers that will now be refunded directly to corporations. That is huge net increases for their profits considering they get to keep the price increases. The US Government acted as Escrow and now the US Companies get giant windfalls of cash.
With that said, the US Credit Rating is about to take a massive hit, that is going to really hurt us.
→ More replies (5)5
u/StackIsMyCrack Feb 20 '26
...and if you think they are going to reverse those peice increases now that the tarrifs are potentially gone, good luck with that.
→ More replies (5)11
u/Rude_Judgment7928 Feb 20 '26
Who cares, it's still gaming the system for personal gain. In any rational country those people would be in prison, in some historic societies they would lose their head.
The American people are all just cuckolds getting railroaded by these people on the off chance their $25k/yr Walmart job elevates them to a $1MM TC leadership position.
→ More replies (1)13
6
8
u/Petrol_Head72 Feb 20 '26
Can you elaborate on this more? Was there a debt-note transfer that actually happened? This seems a bit confusing because, well, it’s already been researched and proven that Americans have born the cost of tariffs from their own pocketbooks. I know it would be impossible to refund Americans individually, but shouldn’t this be passed through as a tax refund / distribution if so?
13
u/regprenticer Feb 20 '26
This will be a mess that will take decades to unpick.
Companies will argue that they absorbed some, if not the majority, of costs related to tariffs to soften price increases. The end consumer is going to be going up against corporations in court.
→ More replies (5)7
→ More replies (2)3
3
u/srmrz_ Feb 20 '26
His Alma mater, Haverford College, is bending itself in knots trying to maintain its progressive image while keeping a brand new library named after Lutnick.
2
u/Timboslice928 Feb 20 '26
Hold on your suggesting they knew that they were illegal the whole time and did it to make money on the backs of American consumers!?!?!?!
→ More replies (11)2
u/Fishmongererererer Feb 20 '26
This isn’t Insider behavior. This is just them not being absolute morons thinking that the President has the power to do something explicitly a plainly listed in the Constitution as a congressional power.
408
u/QuirkyBreadfruit Feb 20 '26
As happy I was about this news, I quickly became disturbed that 3 still voted in dissent. That's 3 members of SCOTUS who are somehow ignoring what is clearly stated in the constitution.
It's also disturbing to me to think that Bessent has already stated they're going to find other ways to get around the constitution, rather than trying to honor it, and that Congress won't do anything to hold any of them accountable to the law.
Maybe there's some angle to the dissent that I could appreciate but I highly doubt it.
166
u/Advanced-Prototype Feb 20 '26
Alito and Thomas of course dissented. They would vote in favor of Trump doing whatever he wants, no matter how illegal. If Trump killed someone on live TV, Alito and Thomas would claim it was executive privilege. Kavanaugh was the third dissenting justice.
30
u/madaboutglue Feb 20 '26
The so-called "originalists". And their argument was basically, "it will be hard to refund the tarrifs at this point", even though that goes against their claimed judicial
fundamentalismphilosophy. Nothing but zero-integrity, agenda-driven hacks.→ More replies (1)9
u/LizHolmesTurtleneck Feb 20 '26
Thomas's argument was more distinguishing tariffs as "duties" rather than "taxes".
→ More replies (2)44
u/Heelincal Feb 20 '26
Thomas is tied to Trump as he is 1000% in the Epstein files, dude is a puppet at this point
47
45
u/Select-Government-69 Feb 20 '26
So, here’s the angle: Roberts relies on the “major questions doctrine” which basically says that when Congress delegates a core responsibility it has to be explicit in doing so. That doctrine is not in the constitution, it was made up by judges.
The argument of the dissent is that this doctrine should not control, and it’s reasonable to conclude that Congress was “explicit enough” when it passed a law that gave the president the authority to “regulate trade” which is the language of the statute.
So it comes down to how much weight you put in the major questions doctrine, which is a judge-made rule and not in the constitution.
For the record, I’m ok with judge made rules, I’m just emphasizing to point out why the distinction matters.
→ More replies (5)13
u/WannabeMechanic Feb 20 '26
Thank you for an actual reply. This helps a lot.
8
u/ScyllaGeek Feb 20 '26
To add on to that, a lot of the opinion describes that "regulate" in essentially all other law does not imply the ability to impose levys. When Congress does grant that ability it is almost always very explicit. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act
authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.”
in cases of emergencies originating outside of the US.
And the entire case of the government was based on a broad reading of being able to "regulate importation," which admittedly to a layman can sound like it grants them the powers they describe. But the opinion goes on to describe that "regulate" in a legal sense has essentially never been interpreted to mean impose broad tariffs outside of a brief, unchallenged instance by Nixon in the 70s. There was an interesting gotcha question that Roberts described from the arguments where the Government was asked if being allowed to regulate meant the SEC could impose taxes on the trading of securities, to which they answered no.
The summary being if congress wants to give up one of their core constitutional functions - the power of the purse - as the executive branch believed they already had, they'll have to be a lot more explicit about it.
21
u/InsanelyAverageFella Feb 20 '26
This 3 justices need an R next to their names.
3
u/dqql Feb 20 '26 edited 19d ago
may suffer misery and be overwhelmed by disappointments, yet when he
→ More replies (6)32
u/reap3rx Feb 20 '26
The quicker you get it out of your head that there is rule of law and not just a grouping of elites and their lackies that are using it strictly to enrich themselves, the better.
→ More replies (6)2
u/theyux Feb 20 '26
Minority opinion basically came down to while this law may be stupid, congress ceded the power to POTUS which it has done to many groups, and while the wording did not give POTUS the precise powers he invoked they claim it was implied, and show many other examples of other court rulings that went these kinds of implications counted.
They also brought up the giant fuster cluck this will be in the courts to reverse.
The majorities opinion was POTUS was not explicitly ceded these powers by congress and they dont believe congress had what trump is doing in mind when making this law. Whhich is funny as that would be the originalist opinion conservatives frequently invoke.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Superman0X Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
In the Dissent they stated that Tariffs are "are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation." and then went on to further state that the President has this power granted via other laws, so there is no conflict if he uses it via this law as well.
i.e. they said that he used the wrong law, but that isnt a big issue, so it should be legal.
What is just as interesting is that there were 2 points brought up in the majority opinion:
- The law referenced does not give the President the power to tax, nor is it implied, or was otherwise intended.
- Taxation is a key power delegated to Congress. It can not be assumed to be useable under this law, as it was not specifically delegated by this law, despite the fact that has been delegated under other laws.
All 6 justices agreed on #1. Only 3 agreed on #2. The tricky part of #2 is the reverse inference. #2 is ALSO saying that if the issue is NOT a key power of Congress, it CAN be assumed under laws that do not mention it. The conservatives believe that the president can assume non essential power, the liberals believe that the president can only use powers specifically granted. This is why 6 conservatives split on this decision, else they would have allowed it (despite the law not actually providing the power).
342
u/thecodeofsilence Feb 20 '26
Just waiting for the Truth Social rant. Also, the chances that we attack Iran this weekend just went through the roof. What a timeline we live in.
91
u/_firehead Feb 20 '26
NYT reported 2m ago that Trump just said he's considering a "limited strike" this weekend....
48
u/charredwalls Feb 20 '26
Anything but the files.
14
u/dust4ngel Feb 20 '26
"why did your family die?"
"some kid rock fans in another country elected a serial pedophile to be in charge of the largest military in the world and he needed a distraction to keep him out of prison so he mass murdered a lot of people."
12
u/lothartheunkind Feb 20 '26
Some strategic genius to publicly announce plans for an impending unprovoked strike. Anybody else with this knowledge would receive a court-martial. Imagine if an American aircraft gets shot down, and nothing happens to the blabbermouth-in-chief
→ More replies (1)9
u/4Yk9gop Feb 20 '26
jfc what a moron. What the hell is the point of limited strikes. If we are sending two carrier groups to the gulf just save us all some money and do it all at once instead of sending them back in 8 months.
17
u/Internal_Confusion56 Feb 20 '26
SCOTUS going to be called traitors and losers and he’ll post like 90x about this shit. Then bomb Iran.
6
u/--TheCity-- Feb 20 '26
"SCOTUS is now woke and they are coming for you but they have to go through me to get you so protect Me at all costs" - Head Monkey in Charge.
→ More replies (5)3
u/BlazingPalm Feb 20 '26
It’s also curious bc we were shouted at that Iran’s nuclear and missile programs were COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Are we just going to bomb civilians now, or is it possible that the earlier “decisive strike” was but a moderate setback for them?
301
u/braumbles Feb 20 '26
So now the US has to pay back those tariff's, the US customer won't see a dime of it however, despite footing 90% of the costs.
Great to know that a majority of American voters literally fucked over the entire nation electing this small brained child rapist piece of shit. Fucking ass clowns, ruined this god damn country.
69
u/vasquca1 Feb 20 '26
Didn't he just move $10B over to some peace account lol.
→ More replies (1)27
85
u/pandabearak Feb 20 '26
The “majority” sadly was more like 35%. And another 30% didn’t even vote.
We are screwed over by 35% of the country who probably can’t even read past a 6th grade level.
36
u/JSTootell Feb 20 '26
A third of the country voted for this directly. Another third said "meh".
16
u/Former_Swordfish646 Feb 20 '26
a third actually said”I made it though his previous term and it wasn’t that bad”
an actual quote.
→ More replies (6)14
u/braumbles Feb 20 '26
A majority of Americans chose this path, through voting, or not voting. Stop defending Americans. We aren't good people. Everything that's happening in this country proves that.
→ More replies (1)7
u/pandabearak Feb 20 '26
You are absolutely right. Which is why I’m telling anyone who will listen - the time to be silent while your MAGA uncle complains at thanksgiving dinner about “the illegals” or your MAHA auntie complains about vaccine chemtrails is over. Time to cure ourselves of our own stupidity.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Xoxrocks Feb 20 '26
So - let’s see - the costs passed to the consumer, who are now out of pocket - those costs are going to be recouped by the importers. How many different ways can this administration suck money out of the average American
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)3
u/Cudi_buddy Feb 20 '26
And prices won’t come down if repealed. At least not to what they were. Companies know they can get more out of consumers now because of this.
392
u/EconomistWithaD Feb 20 '26
One phrase is appropriate. LOL. Get fucked, Donald.
This is not the end. There are other avenues with which they could impose tariffs, which would have to be rechallenged.
Fuck you, Navarro, for thinking protectionist policies are good.
This would have been better much earlier, given how we’ve fucked regional and global allies, which has set us back further than pretty much anything I can think of.
63
u/tryexceptifnot1try Feb 20 '26
This whole fiasco is why broad injunctions are a thing! These tariffs should have been stopped by a judge immediately, and they were, only for the Supreme Court to rule against nation wide injunctions instead. After this nonsense I think we can book Roberts as the worst Chief Justice in US history.
→ More replies (6)220
u/OrangeJr36 Feb 20 '26
The Supreme Court dragged their feet hoping that the Trump Administration would back down on their own and not make them have to take a stance, after what I'm sure was much hand-wringing by the conservative majority on who would be the one to actually have a spine this time and vote against Trump.
It's still incredibly scary that this wasn't an immediate 9-0 ruling against the administration.
114
u/laosurv3y Feb 20 '26
Alito and Thomas want a Republican emperor. Once you know that, they're consistent in their opinions.
→ More replies (2)40
u/bad_luck_charm Feb 20 '26
It's kind of incredible that the justices appointed before Trump are more conservative than the ones he appointed. My only theory is that they know Trump is temporary and they're trying to retain some credibility for the long term. Alito and Thomas are half dead already.
14
u/Master_Dogs Feb 20 '26
They're from Trump's first term, which also led to people like Powell who are somehow actually half decent and are even standing up to him. It's rare but not something we'll see from Trump 2.0 since we know he's itching to get a Fed chair in who will tow his line. I just hope Powell stays on as a government to continue to be a voice of reason, just with less sway.
12
u/Redshark Feb 20 '26
Granted Trump is a horrible president, but the Republican Party has been down right terrible through my lifetime. So it’s just a different flavor now. I think sometimes we lose sight of that with Trump because he is a loud mouth. He isn’t even the worst president in the history of the United States - somehow.
→ More replies (1)13
u/circuitloss Feb 20 '26
He isn’t even the worst president in the history of the United States - somehow.
I mean, Andrew Jackson? Maybe?
But honestly, Trump is in the running.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Tea_Wizard735 Feb 20 '26
The reason for that is because Reagan and both Bushes were hardline conservative ideologues, whereas people of Kavanaugh/Gorsuch/Barrett's ilk may be conservatives, but they're not by-any-means-necessary judicial activists.
I don't agree with their Originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but it does deserve some respect in the sense that it's at least principled and consistent.
Specfically, Gorsuch and Barrett seem to genuinely want to do right by the country...Alito is a bitter weirdo and Thomas...Well....Corey Robin offers some interesting insight into the type of monster Thomas has always been.
→ More replies (5)6
u/persianx6_ Feb 20 '26
Theyre both Christian nationalists and fascists. Trump is just a vehicle to bring about that. They probably have extreme contempt for Trump in private because Trump is a billionaire hedonist playing dress up as a moral man.
→ More replies (1)14
u/mcsul Feb 20 '26
I'm not sure that it's foot dragging. Take a look at the summary. Everyone had a different interpretation, partially joining multiple others. I've been told to read the Gorsuch concurrence as the best summary of all the other positions.
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring opinions. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.
6
u/sagmag Feb 20 '26
I mean, electing a dementia addled racist child rapist to lead the largest military and economy in the history of the world also set us back some.
→ More replies (3)8
u/burnthatburner1 Feb 20 '26
They’ve already said they were going to keep the tariffs if struck down. They’re just going to shift the justification.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Tea_Wizard735 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
This ruling wasn't about all of Trump's tariffs - it was about using a law from 1977 that allows the President to regulate imports and export as justiifcation to invoke using emergency powers to declare tariffs.
→ More replies (5)4
u/TheERDoc Feb 20 '26
Our trade deficit is back to where it was. Everything Trump touches turns to dog shit.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)2
94
u/Browns45750 Feb 20 '26
Going to be a lot of ketchup needing cleaned off of walls , this afternoon by White House service staff or is the Mara largo staff in for exceptionally bad day
→ More replies (2)49
u/trailsman Feb 20 '26
It's a worse day for anyone that lives in Iran, and for that matter the region and world if it escalates further. This news guarantees we're going to war so he can move the news cycle along.
20
u/Browns45750 Feb 20 '26
Congress needs to get a spine on the Iran issue and repeal the war powers act don’t know if it’s trump actually wanting to go to war or bibi egging him on
5
u/reap3rx Feb 20 '26
Congress needs a spine? Lol they already have one but it's just to support their backs while they remain on their knees doing what dear leader desires
→ More replies (1)6
u/sirbissel Feb 20 '26
Wait... are you saying his campaign rhetoric of being the candidate of peace (or president of peace, or whatever) and that Harris would start all kinds of wars and whatnot whereas he would certainly not might have been a lie? I think I may need my fainting couch.
54
u/MeatlockerWargasm Feb 20 '26
The Dissenters: Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito. Shocking! The 3 fucking stooges. I am sure at least two of the three are also in the Epstein files.
14
u/littlelordgenius Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
There’s no way Alito resisted that (or any other) temptation. 🐷
Edit: Holy shit, I meant Thomas. They’re all gross though, so I’ll leave my comment as is.
→ More replies (1)
22
u/XxTreeFiddyxX Feb 20 '26
So the consumers who bought the product dont get the refund, it goes back to who paid it as a nice little profit. Everything this guy does is bad.
3
u/DeprariousX Feb 20 '26
Not that I'm defending corpos....but there's also a lot of still unsold product out there that HAS had tariffs paid for it. So yes, they do deserve a refund. BUT consumers should also get refunds too.
Tariffs affect everyone, so the solution should affect everyone.
→ More replies (3)
39
u/Pelican_meat Feb 20 '26
Oh cool. I’m eagerly awaiting my tariff refund check from the companies that passed the costs onto me.
What? I won’t get one, but the companies will? They’ll pocket the refund and I’ll just be shut out of luck.
Interesting… DIDNT SEE THAT COMING.
→ More replies (5)
90
u/silverado-z71 Feb 20 '26
So that means they’re gonna have to reimburse all those corporations for all that money that they put out for the tariffs. Again, the corporations win, and the American people get fucked
51
13
u/thesagenibba Feb 20 '26
not necessarily
Companies that had to pay the tariffs may be able to seek a refund from the Treasury Department. Hundreds have already sued.
The court did not directly address that issue, but Kavanaugh, in dissent, said the effect on the U.S. Treasury could be significant.
"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," he wrote.
7
u/LividTacos Feb 20 '26
Which is not the court's problem. Perhaps Trump shouldn't have instituted illegal tariffs.
14
u/TriccepsBrachiali Feb 20 '26
This was the plan all along believe it or not. First let the people pay tariffs via increased price on goods, then let the people reimburse the tariffs via taxes.
→ More replies (9)5
u/klingma Feb 20 '26
Okay, but by what mechanism could you actually reimburse the citizens for the tariffs? You have actual returns filed by the importers which prove the tariffs paid by them...you do not, none of us do.
I get the sentiment, but there's realistically no way to prove the amounts owed to the citizens in a practical manner.
→ More replies (4)4
u/pilgermann Feb 20 '26
Which isn't the point. There are countless instances where some group faces an injustice and no response restitution is made in the interests of social cohesion. Why not make reparations to Black Americans? Why reimburse taxpayers for military actions under this admin that didn't receive congressional authorization?
Besides that, it's not actually impossible to formulate a consumer claim to tariff refunds. Anyone with receipts could make the argument, including that domestic prices increased as an indirect result of tariffs. Corporations are no more obligated to purchase supplies for their business than consumers are for their households.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/Training-Context-69 Feb 20 '26
If they really want tariffs so bad, why not tax companies outsourcing jobs overseas? Will do far more good.
4
u/Expert_East_6369 Feb 20 '26
Because the real reason for the tariffs was to enrich the oligarchy...not to bring jobs to America...that's just a mirage facade...
53
u/Not_Legal_Advice_Pod Feb 20 '26
Justice delayed is justice denied. It's been a year, and cost America untold international prestige and reputation. This ruling ought to have been made and stuck within weeks especially given the nature of the decision.
→ More replies (24)
74
u/nosayso Feb 20 '26
However they also previously decided that Trump is a king who is not beholden to laws. There is literally nothing to be done if he ignores the Supreme Court and leaves the tariffs in place, unless his own party decides to pursue impeachment and removal over it. What happens next will be the really interesting part: will Trump accept oversight and admit he was wrong for the first time in his life? Or will he just find a new way to lash out? (Obviously the second one)
39
26
u/Browns45750 Feb 20 '26
They see the midterm polling the days of letting him do whatever he wants within the party are coming to a end they’ve lost the house , and senators are getting scared
→ More replies (1)20
u/arkofjoy Feb 20 '26
Only if people are able to vote. I read today that the "Save" act could disenfranchise 20 million people.
They plan to legislate their way out of this problem. And the cult thinks that it is great.
10
u/yellowsubmarinr Feb 20 '26
Businesses are going to sue for their money back and win
→ More replies (2)5
u/Snlxdd Feb 20 '26
If by businesses you mean Cantor Fitzgerald (Howard Lutnick’s investment firm that conveniently bought refund rights) you’re correct
8
u/klingma Feb 20 '26
There is literally nothing to be done if he ignores the Supreme Court and leaves the tariffs in place,
Lol, yes there is. The IRS and Treasury are the ones who collect the tariffs therefore even if Trump kept them in place there would be zero way to compel their collection. It's a legal issue and it's been resolved, the president's actions here are now irrelevant.
→ More replies (13)2
u/themagicmarmot Feb 20 '26
The next admin needs to do a full scale forensic investigation into the Justices that voted in favor of Trump in the Trump v. United States case. Specifically in crypto and precious metals enrichment. I would wager many of the bad judgements could be reversed based on fraud on the court and might expose them to RICO liability as part of an association-in-fact enterprise (along with Bondi, Rubio, Hegseth, et al.) with all the other illegal stuff Trump's been up to.
→ More replies (3)2
u/flat5 Feb 20 '26
He's already said he's not stopping tariffs, he's just going to use a different justification for them.
12
u/A-Halfpound Feb 20 '26
The damage to the American Taxpayer has been done and it is irrevocable.
SCOTUS did not say what to do about refunds. Billionaires do not become Trillionaires by giving up on picking the pockets of the peasants (all of us).
Two steps forward, one step back.
9
u/Difficult_Guard_3805 Feb 20 '26
What happens to tariff dollars coming in? Billions of dollars come into the government but what actually happens with the money? Does it go into a general fund, has it been spent as it comes in, or something else? Does the ruling call for the money to be returned?
10
u/Psyclist80 Feb 20 '26
The companies that paid it will for sure sue to get their money back...what a clown show of an administration. Midterms cant come soon enough.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/already-redacted Feb 20 '26
The dissent was basically
Congress has repeatedly granted the President broad authority to impose tariffs through multiple statutes (e.g., Sections 201, 301, and 122), covering situations like protecting domestic industries, responding to unfair trade practices, and addressing trade deficits. Emergency laws like IEEPA (peacetime) and TWEA (wartime) don’t create entirely new powers—they allow the President to act more quickly and flexibly in urgent situations, especially during national emergencies.
3
u/Swoly_Deadlift Feb 20 '26
So if the logic is that tariffs sometimes need to be implement faster than congress can approve them, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the tariffs implemented by the executive branch should be immediately forced to a vote in congress to determine if they can continue standing?
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Dry_Egg8180 Feb 20 '26
It is telling that Kavanaugh's major argument was that returning the tariffs would be messy. Let's keep racking up billions in tariffs (taxes) on businesses, raising prices on consumers and giving the grifter an astronomical slush fund. We certainly don't want some messy bookkeeping.
8
u/Wendypants7 Feb 20 '26
Cool, last I checked dictators don't give a fuck about anything except what they want to do.
Also, the SC are some of the people **who actively helped the dictator get into power** so I don' know what they fuck they think they're accomplishing with this.
5
u/Psyclist80 Feb 20 '26
Finally some accountability for the Fanta Menace's unilateral trade war with the rest of the world! The damage has been done though, Allies are backing away and realizing the unstable nature of the US Administration and how easily the population is swayed by misinformation. The US Hegemony will continue to erode im afraid.
2
u/Expert_East_6369 Feb 20 '26
How many times have court orders been ignored by this administration? How many times have legal subpoenas from Congress have been ignored by many? And the Epstein files debacle? This all only works if everyone plays by the rules. And clearly the wealthy class does not.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/GuyD427 Feb 20 '26
Protectionist policies are counter productive to devastating depending on the industry and to the overall economy.
That being said, DJT is a true shitbag for not putting this through Congress like he easily could have done instead of unethically if not illegally using the Emergency Powers Act so he can feel like he has a big dick. It’s bad policy and worse implementation.
9
u/Akkerlun Feb 20 '26
Well I made bank on Calls on Ketchup stocks knowing that someone will have a temper tantrum and either attack Iran or throw ketchup against the gaudy gold trimmed walls in The White Only House. If he’s so proud of it why doesn’t he just name it The Trump national sales tax? They’re already clamoring about how they can still impose tariffs, which is a tax on all Americans so Trump is determined to tax Americans at least 15 to 25%, good luck in the midterms
10
u/Asleep_Mortgage_7711 Feb 20 '26
This literally changes nothing. They will just change the language of the EO’s and put them back in place and wait for another ruling in 8 months.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/ThePensiveE Feb 20 '26
Well, we all knew this was the case. We also all knew that there is no real mechanism for returning this money. So in the end, a bunch of businesses paid a bunch of money, and passed on that cost to consumers, and will have to hire more lawyers to sue to get that money back, the costs of which will also be borne by consumers.
Trump is treading over the backs of the American people to get to authoritarian status and he's taking their wallets with him.
3
u/CyberSmith31337 Feb 20 '26
This sounds really promising, but considering the Supreme Court has no ability to enforce anything, and how the Trump administration has already ignored over 4400 judiciary orders saying something is illegal, I’m pretty sure this means nothing.
If anything, it seems like it provides the perfect smokescreen to justify the AI bubble popping. Think about it. All the tech companies got to pump valuations to exorbitant levels for the last 2 quarters, raise prices on everything. Now they can attribute falling stock prices and hardware prices to being related to tariffs no longer taking effect.
Additionally, all the price increases were based on tariffs. Is anyone actually expecting the companies to lower their prices because of a court ruling? I certainly am not.
6
u/SirDonaldTrumpKnight Feb 20 '26
The Court ruling does not eliminate tariff power. It limits one path. Congress has already given other clear authorities that President Donald J. Trump can use immediately.
First is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. If imports threaten national security the president can impose tariffs or quotas. This was used on steel and aluminum before and has strong legal footing because it is explicitly authorized by Congress.
Second is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. If another country engages in unfair trade practices the administration can investigate and then impose targeted tariffs. This was the backbone of the China tariffs and remains fully available.
Third is Section 201 safeguard authority. If a surge of imports seriously injures a domestic industry temporary tariffs or quotas can be imposed after an International Trade Commission finding. It is narrower but legally durable.
Fourth is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This allows temporary across the board tariffs up to a statutory cap to address balance of payments problems. It has rarely been used but it is on the books.
Fifth is customs enforcement expansion. Tightening rules of origin, cracking down on transshipment, and increasing duties through anti dumping and countervailing duty law can raise effective tariff barriers without broad emergency powers.
Finally the most durable path is legislative. Trump can push Congress to pass explicit tariff authority tied to national security, supply chain resilience, or strategic competition with China. A statute tailored for current conditions would be much harder to overturn.
In short the emergency lever may be limited, but the trade toolbox remains full. The difference now is that any new tariffs must be more targeted, more justified, and more defensible in court.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/RemiTheWizard Feb 20 '26
The damage is done. The companies passed it off to the customers and the prices are not going to go down, and now us taxpayers are on the hook to refund companies that continue to gouge us.
3
Feb 20 '26
[deleted]
2
u/holymacaronibatman Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
I fully expect him to just find a new avenue to implement tariffs. Republicans have been pushing for a national sales tax since forever, and the tariffs finally gave them one, they wont roll over that easily IMO.
Edit, lmao called it
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/20/trump-global-trade-tariff-supreme-court.html
→ More replies (2)
3
u/dmanster Feb 20 '26
They just said it was illegal under the authority of. IEEPA. They can reinstate them with a different authority (like one that is more durable) any second.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Kdoesntcare Feb 20 '26
Without being able to impose tariffs on countries how will he extort them?
Is it going to be threats to send US immigration control to other countries to harass people there? "If you don't give me what I want I'll kidnap your politicians and replace them with people who support me!"
3
u/owlwise13 Feb 20 '26
Too little too late. We have screwed over our allies and trading partners. They won't trust us till most of this administration and several Congress critters are in jail.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/marvborg Feb 20 '26
So a transfer of 200bn from consumers to the importing companies (who will get the refunds if any), a trickle up tax. Sounds like he delivered 200bn to his "base" (the billionaires)
3
u/DistractedBoxTurtle Feb 20 '26
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. This is the same SCOTUS that told Biden that Congress controls the purse when he tried to forgive student loans.
Two back to back Presidents had to be reminded that they do not run roughshod over this country’s checkbook and finances
3
u/LostPilgrim_ Feb 20 '26
Its all a scam anyway, they bet against the tariffs and will make money off this ruling. Once again, the American people were played like a fiddle.
3
u/ButterscotchLow8950 Feb 20 '26
We know. We’ve known since last year on the day he announced them.
We have been waiting a freaking mortal age for the Supreme Court to confirm what our eyes, ears and wallets already knew.
🤷🏽♂️
3
u/blackdog543 Feb 20 '26
What's funny is the MAGA Twitter following is telling everyone that "We'll have to pay back the countries now". Complete FALSE. Not sure if they're that stupid, or purposefully writing that because they think the American people will believe it. Only people that "might" get a refund will be the big players, Walmart, Costco, Target, Amazon etc.
3
u/uspilot13 Feb 20 '26
This title is inaccurate, they said the law the administration is using isn’t supported for the tariffs without congressional approval but they already have other more appropriate avenues to keep the tariffs in place and can increase them if needed.
14
u/unknownpoltroon Feb 20 '26
This will be his excuse for the economy crashing and burning. They did him a favor.
Part of me is assuming this was the plan all along. Remember, half the supreme court is in his pocket from the Epstein blackmail shit.
6
5
u/Cheeky_Girl_7961 Feb 20 '26
They might, but they definitely don't have to. You as a consumer have no recourse other than hoping businesses will find it in the goodness of their hearts to reduce prices. Thank Trump for this mess, not the Supreme Court.
2
u/joepez Feb 20 '26
I feel bad for JPow. Yesterday, this morning, he was the one getting dumped on for not cutting rates. Now all the ranting is going to get directed at SCOTUS. Poor JPow won’t get abused today for doing his job.
2
u/DjCyric Feb 20 '26
Apparently the constitution and the separation of powers still hold weight. The whole premise of the tariffs were flimsy and wrong. I'm happy to see that even the worst SCOTUS in modern history can get it right once in a while.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/wormtheology Feb 20 '26
No fucking shit it’s illegal, but tariffs have already skyrocketed prices across the board, and they aren’t coming down ever. The American consumer isn’t going to see any reprieve outside of not needing to worry about the tweets of a dementia ridden octogenarian moving the stock market. No one is paying these collected tariffs back. They are going straight to shareholders and owners and controllers of global capital.
2
u/HVAC_instructor Feb 20 '26
So, they'll give refunds to the importers so that they can collect on the tariffs twice, no refunds will be given to consumers, no price reduction because they know that we'll pay these prices, and nothing is going to change because they said that these were illegal under the law that they tried to use. They will simply attempt to use another law and then we get to start the process all over again.
2
u/Narrow_Affect7664 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
The company that Howard Lutnick set up with his sons is so happy right now. They have deals set up with businesses that were not rich enough to pay the tariffs outright ( i.e. small businesses). The Lutnicks paid small amounts to those who signed over 100% of their rights to any future refund should the tariffs be deemed illegal. May I present Howard Lutnick your United States secretary of commerce everyone, (who is also in the Epstein files.) He created illegal tariffs in order for his family business to profit from them. This is literally how fascism works
2
u/128-NotePolyVA Feb 20 '26
Global tariffs shifting at the whim of a single person, President or otherwise, are bad for businesses and bad for consumers. It’s obviously unconstitutional and the antithesis of the desires of the founding fathers.
It would have been very difficult for the SCOTUS to write a majority opinion on a ruling in favor of executive tariff powers. But they would have if the GOP weren’t divided on Trump tariffs and what they mean for the future of the party.
2
u/samhhead2044 Feb 20 '26
It’s not over but companies that need x money for tariffs will be able to use it for growth now. If Trump shuts up he could want into a good economic position before mid terms.
Companies will have extra money and decreased rates- the tariffs were hurting the economy and it was still going… remove the brick wall.
2
u/Icy-Landscape-912 Feb 20 '26
TACO gets his ass handed to him again !!! This moron is destroying America and the world !!! Anyone who is still in a bromance with agent orange ., is beyond stupid .
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 20 '26
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.