American Tariffs reversed by US Supreme Court

[Alan Edward Klein]

From an article:
The Supreme Court struck down most of Trump’s sweeping tariff policy under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, with the majority ruling that that law “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The ruling did not address whether tariffs that have already been paid would need to be refunded.

 

[djdister]

Supreme Court Rules Against Trump's Tariffs

 

[Arthurwg]

How quickly will that translate into action? I'm waiting to buy something.

 

[loccdor]

Supreme Court Rules Against Trump's Tariffs

TL;DR on that: tariffs are likely to remain, as the ruling only applies to a specific law (International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977).

 

[loccdor]

The ruling only applies to a specific act from 1977 and the tariffs are expected to remain.

 

[mshchem]

The ruling only applies to a specific act from 1977 and the tariffs are expected to remain.

Trump enacted tariffs in 1977?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The ruling only applies to a specific act from 1977 and the tariffs are expected to remain.

The 'emergency' IEEPA tariffs are struck down.

Next question...how is 150 billion collected returned to those who paid?

 

[MattKing]

TL;DR on that: tariffs are likely to remain, as the ruling only applies to a specific law (International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977).

That being the legislation that the US executive purported to use to levy the tariffs.
Normally, taxation laws can only be imposed by the legislature - Congress in the USA.
Even at the time of US independence, the power to levy taxes resided in Parliament, not the monarchy, and the US brought that into their laws then as well.

 

[mshchem]

That being the legislation that the US executive purported to use to levy the tariffs.
Normally, taxation laws can only be imposed by the legislature - Congress in the USA.
Even at the time of US independence, the power to levy taxes resided in Parliament, not the monarchy, and the US brought that into their laws then as well.

Only Congress can legally go to war, we see how that's working out!

 

[mshchem]

I'm still waiting to rejoin the Commonwealth!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The 'emergency' IEEPA tariffs are struck down.

Next question...how is 150 billion collected returned to those who paid?

That's a mess. The importer paid the tax and would sue the government to get the money back. However, the tariff was passed on down the line to distributors, retailers, and the end users - us. So each one is gonna want the one above to reimburse some money to the next level. So everyone's going to have to pass money down. It's incomprehensible.

 

[mshchem]

The 'emergency' IEEPA tariffs are struck down.

Next question...how is 150 billion collected returned to those who paid?

Going to rebuild the East Wing

 

[chuckroast]

I'm still waiting to rejoin the Commonwealth!

Not me - they use those weird weights and measures, Well, you do get a good pint at the pub, I have to say.

 

[BrianShaw]

Has The Soapbox been revived? Seems so...

 

[djdister]

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here are two thousand words related to the Supreme Court's ruling. Please note, there is nothing political about these charts.

 

[Arthurwg]

I'm still waiting to rejoin the Commonwealth!

I felt that way at one time but after I met a few Brits I'm not so sure.

 

[loccdor]

Trump enacted tariffs in 1977?

The way in which he enacted the tariffs was to use the act from 1977. The supreme court today said that particular act cannot be used to enact tariffs - as per the Reuters news story and paraphrasing Justice Alito, tariffs can still be enacted through other avenues.

 

[spookyphoto]

TL;DR on that: tariffs are likely to remain, as the ruling only applies to a specific law (International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977).

2/3 of all of Trump's tariffs were IEEPA. He just got his balls chopped off.

 

[loccdor]

If you're interested in the specific next possibilities:

• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: This allows the President to impose tariffs on imports that are deemed a threat to national security. It requires an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
• Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: This authority is used to respond to unfair trade practices, such as violations of trade agreements or discriminatory actions by foreign countries that burden U.S. commerce. It requires an investigation by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
• Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: This provision permits the President to impose temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits.
• Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (Smoot-Hawley): This allows for tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. While it has never been used, it does not require a prior federal agency investigation.
• Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974: Known as the "escape clause," it allows for temporary tariffs to safeguard domestic industries from a sudden surge of imports that causes or threatens serious injury.

The administration has already stated they will pursue alternative avenues.

 

[Cholentpot]

2/3 of all of Trump's tariffs were IEEPA. He just got his balls chopped off.

Not exactly. He's being forced to make effort to keep the tariffs. You don't think he doesn't have a whole team in place that had a dozen different plans for this? Everyone knew this particular strain of tariff wouldn't stand in the SCOTUS. The tariffs are going nowhere and I'll bet he doubles down and charges more.

 

[pentaxuser]

2/3 of all of Trump's tariffs were IEEPA. He just got his balls chopped off.

Can I assume, at his age, this is nothing like as serious as it would have been once?

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No personality or political attacks allowed in this thread or it'll get shut down. Please stick to the facts and economic issues.

 

[pentaxuser]

No personality or political attacks allowed in this thread or it'll get shut down. Please stick to the facts and economic issues.

We know the facts of the announcement and the economic issues already, don't we? Anything more is just speculation at this point so the thread is effectively in abeyance until further notice when we know more, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

 

[ags2mikon]

I guess my shopping list will have to wait. KEH is calling.

 

[mshchem]

Not me - they use those weird weights and measures, Well, you do get a good pint at the pub, I have to say.

Is Canada in the Commonwealth? I think my people in Virginia got left behind when all the Loyalists went north after the "Uprising" . I don't even hold it against the Canucks for helping to burn Washington DC.

I'll bring the US WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAM