Quote:

---

I think they should doo more and see more clearly

---

Part of me understands how and why the Roberts Court sees their role as limiting. Time after time, you hear that principle during oral arguments. "What is the limiting principle here?"

It is a separation of powers issue and how the Court fears overstepping their role into the strictly political realm. But past Courts still have done it, although in a limiting manner. (Bush v. Gore comes to mind.) But there is also a flip side to that. When failing to answer certain questions within their decisions create more political issues creating more ambiguity, not less.

Bad motives? Not really. Nearly terminal short sightedness? Yes. There is nothing that prohibits the Court from considering practical and pragmatic effects stemming from their opinions. Their role is to provide guidance, afterall.

I don't think we can be definitive that refunds aren't allowable. The SC themselves did not clearly delineate this and said that process will be a mess. Thus, they've left it up in the air.

YouBet said:

---

I don't think we can be definitive that refunds aren't allowable. The SC themselves did not clearly delineate this and said that process will be a mess. Thus, they've left it up in the air.

---

That was in Kavanaugh's dissent not the majority opinion. The majority opinion did leave it up in the air practically mandating a whole new slew of litigation and that is very unfortunate.

aggiehawg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I don't think we can be definitive that refunds aren't allowable. The SC themselves did not clearly delineate this and said that process will be a mess. Thus, they've left it up in the air.

---

That was in Kavanaugh's dissent not the majority opinion. The majority opinion did leave it up in the air practically mandating a whole new slew of litigation and that is very unfortunate.

---

Right, so we can count on refunds being demanded and potentially issued. That will be the mess.

So, did Trump actually break a law? Was there a law saying he couldn't impose tariffs? Was there a law stating he couldn't impose tariffs or collect revenue under IEEEA? Or did the court issue an opinion that now has the effect of law?

ETA, based on Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, there are multiple statutes that enable the president to impose tariffs without congressional approval.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

It' funny because you know he would if he could. LOL!!!

MagnumLoad said:

---

So, did Trump actually break a law? Was there a law saying he couldn't impose tariffs? Was there a law stating he couldn't impose tariffs or collect revenue under IEEEA? Or did the court issue an opinion that now has the effect of law?

ETA, based on Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, there are multiple statutes that enable the president to impose tariffs without congressional approval.

---

The point is he didn't use the proper tariff process for some of them though. Those methods had other requirements. You can't go back and change that to make them retroactively lawful. Court could have said the opinion was prospective but the Feds even argued that they could keep collecting until a decision was reached BECAUSE they would refund overpayments.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No refunds . It wasnt illegal until it was.

---

So much for promises made, promises kept.

Thanks, ACB et.al.

The crazy thing is, the entire government is Republican. If this was so important to Donald he could have just gone through the legislative process to pull this off. But the point of the tariffs was to exert limitless, extra-constitutional power which is clearly delegated to a different branch of government. It was part of the push to make it the unitary executive or some form of elected monarchy. The point of the tariffs wasn't explicitly the tariffs it was an erosion of the system of government and American institutions. Through that lens it's easy to understand why Trump is crashing out over this. He's lost his political capital and he's suffered a narcissistic wound similar to when he lost the 2020 election. That's why the case was so important, it finally limited the power of the executive regardless of political party. His power peaked months ago largely because he has no self control or discipline. It also means the state of union on Tuesday is going to be another exercise in public embarrassment for Donald and frankly this country up there with the FIFA Peace Prize, the Board of Peace, his awful Davos speech and so many other moments where his mental illness (narcissism) is put on display for the world to see. Luckily many of us have lost what it means to feel shame because the only virtue that matters is "owning the [insert political slur]". No wonder our current politics is futureless and solely functions around fueling our narcissistic leader.

He's already effectively lost the house and Republican defections are only going to increase as we approach the midterms. Then we'll have a Democrat House and close to a coin flip of a Democrat Senate. Then he'll continue to act out as he flails around. Quack quack.

The real question you should ask yourself, would you be ok if your non preferred political party president had the power Trump has been claiming. If the answer is no, the only way you can support what Trump has done is either that no Democrat will ever win again (delusional) or that no Democrat will ever be allowed to win again (no additional comment necessary). We're more likely than not going to find out in less than 2.5 years what this board thinks about where the limit of executive power should be.

Simple questions posed. Obfuscation offered. Graduate course in law school.

It actually wasn't legal. The SC just said so. Just because it takes time for a court to rule an action illegal doesn't make it legal during the interim.

Trump won't voluntarily issue refunds. Those who paid them will have to sue in federal court. I like their chances, but it will take time.

The only ones who can claim a refund are those who actually paid the tariff, usually the importing agent and not the big brand or retail outlet you think of. Those folks played hardball with many of the importing agents and tried to get them to eat the tariffs. Some did, some didn't, and some were a mixed bag.

The whole thing is a mess. It was clear to a blind man that Trump was exceeding his authority. It's good that the SC set it straight just like they did with Biden when he tried to forgive student loans on a massive scale even though there was no underlying statutory or constitutional authority for him to do that.

We don't want autocrats forcing things on us that we haven't approved through our constitution or laws passed by our elected representatives.

Quote:

---

It actually wasn't legal. The SC just said so. Just because it takes time for a court to rule an action illegal doesn't make it legal during the interim.

---

Throwing out an incorrect term such as "illegal" is very misleading. And that is not what the majority opinion says at all. Tariffs are not "illegal." The majority only said the language of one particular statute did not include tariffs under IEEPA.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It actually wasn't legal. The SC just said so. Just because it takes time for a court to rule an action illegal doesn't make it legal during the interim.

---

Throwing out an incorrect term such as "illegal" is very misleading. And that is not what the majority opinion says at all. Tariffs are not "illegal." The majority only said the language of one particular statute did not include tariffs under IEEPA.

---

I hear you on the words and acknowledgement that. I'm using the word in simple layman terms and not trying to be precisely with legal language. I didn't say all tariffs are illegal.

The court did rule that those tariffs applied under IEEPA weren't legally applied. The president didn't have the authority under that law to do that. So it's overturned. They didn't rule on refunds. It would have been much better if they did. I think those who paid them have a good chance to eventually recover them. Not a 100% guaranteed but much better than 50/50.

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

Every single President since FDR has pushed and tested the power of the executive. Acting like this is something new and unprecedented just proves you have no idea what you are talking about and just ranting your full blown case of TDS.

I bet if you call Trump a narcissist 100 more times you'll finally win that prize you so desperately crave

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It actually wasn't legal. The SC just said so. Just because it takes time for a court to rule an action illegal doesn't make it legal during the interim.

---

Throwing out an incorrect term such as "illegal" is very misleading. And that is not what the majority opinion says at all. Tariffs are not "illegal." The majority only said the language of one particular statute did not include tariffs under IEEPA.

---

Which is the whole point. If you weren't allowed to collect a tax or duty but you still did, you can't keep it. This happens with income tax all the time. It's ridiculous to think that if you disagree with the IRS view of a tax law but still pay it, you can't get your money back when you win. It's also ridiculous to think that someone can't go amend their own return to get their benefit if they are in the same situation. We file protective refund claims all the time while we wait for others to litigate. As long as you preserve the ability to get the refund based on statutes of limitation, you're fine.

Hell, there are clear procedures around which court you file in and whether you can actually withhold payment until a decision is made. The Feds even included in one of their filings in this case a statement that they would refund overpayments if anything was found to be incorrectly charged. It's obviously only the IOR who actually paid the duty that can get a refund. I've seen plenty of companies running a business where they were classifying goods incorrectly or not calculating drawback correctly and paying more than they should have. Our teams fixed it and got refunds. None of their customers get the chance to get a refund because they didn't actually import anything.

The confident misunderstanding of the process around here is wild. I guess that's why big accounting and tax firms have all this work.

Pinochet said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

So, did Trump actually break a law? Was there a law saying he couldn't impose tariffs? Was there a law stating he couldn't impose tariffs or collect revenue under IEEEA? Or did the court issue an opinion that now has the effect of law?

ETA, based on Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, there are multiple statutes that enable the president to impose tariffs without congressional approval.

---

The point is he didn't use the proper tariff process for some of them though. Those methods had other requirements. You can't go back and change that to make them retroactively lawful. Court could have said the opinion was prospective but the Feds even argued that they could keep collecting until a decision was reached BECAUSE they would refund overpayments.

---

That is the result of the court opinion now. It was not specifically unlawful as IEEPA was written. And I don't believe the court opined that tariffs under IEEEA are/were illegal. Just that $ can't be collected under them. So why impose them? But that is now. There was no such previous opinion on IEEPA I have seen, and IEEPA was not specific regarding that as written. So maybe I refund tariff money collected between the time the of the court majority opinion and the time tariffs were stated to be imposed under other statutes. But maybe not.

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

Not a bit, and if you think this was by accident, it isn't.

Let's just say you bought an AutoRelaXer* from ARX, Inc. Advertised for $999, they told you before your order the 15% tariff would raise the price to $1099.99 (they'll eat the rest), so you can cancel if you want. You agree to the higher price, in part because they said they'd eat half of it ($50).

But, they aren't eating anything. They import the AutoRelaXer completely assembled. Their invoice price is $278 (it doesn't include freight). They pay $320 ($42 more) and charge you $99.99 more (telling you they are losing $50 on the deal). [Anytime a salesman tells you they are losing money on the deal, walk away. They're lying to you.]

Why do you think none of the major corps sued over the tariffs? They knew they were illegal, but paid anyway. Why? They are in on it. They knew, at worst, they have to pay the tariffs their competitors pay. This allows them the raise their prices to more than cover the tariffs (a competent businessman isn't going to lose money on the deal). When the tariffs are declared illegal, they get their money back and get to keep it. When they get asked why they don't lower their prices to the pre-tariff levels, they'll just say Biden's inflation has caused the prices to go up, so blame the Dems.

*The AutoRelaXer and ARX, Inc. are fictional and used for illustrative purposes only.

Do you know what a court does in this case? You realize they interpreted the law at the time? They aren't making up new laws.

This is the kind of confident misunderstanding I'm talking about.

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

---

Honest question. Do you manufacture overseas or do you import goods? It sounds like Trumps tariffs were working if the US is collecting billions of dollars and the consumer isn't paying more through inflation. Isn't this what we want as a country?

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

---

Honest question. Do you manufacture overseas or do you import goods? It sounds like Trumps tariffs were working if the US is collecting billions of dollars and the consumer isn't paying more through inflation. Isn't this what we want as a country?

---

I'm not arguing against tariffs in all cases because they make sense in some applications. But I am pushing back on any notion that none of the tariffs showed up in inflation. There are plenty of data points in the media from nonpartisan economists that demonstrate some of that cost was passed onto consumers. Our inflation target has been 2% for at least a couple decades. PCE inflation came in at 3% in December and expected to notch up a bit in January. Tariffs are part of that. You can make the case the benefit is worth the cost but anybody clinging to a view that consumers aren't absorbing any tariff cost is being willfully blind to the facts.

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It actually wasn't legal. The SC just said so. Just because it takes time for a court to rule an action illegal doesn't make it legal during the interim.

---

Throwing out an incorrect term such as "illegal" is very misleading. And that is not what the majority opinion says at all. Tariffs are not "illegal." The majority only said the language of one particular statute did not include tariffs under IEEPA.

---

Oh, that's rich.

Quote:

---

Throwing out an incorrect term such as "illegal" is very misleading.

---

I'll have to remember this one when immigration issues come up,

But, it is really your opinion that, after determining that the government was not legally allowed to collect the tariffs, that they will permit the government profit from such activity? I am reminded of a poison fruit simile.

Yesterday said:

---

If there is a refund, despite the law of the land at the time and the reconciliation nightmare; then there should be no reason we can't undo elections when there is clear evidence of fraud.

---

Normally I would agree with you but I'm about to send my spawn of Satan youngest daughter off to college. No chance I'm turning the calendar back to 2020.

I think it is strange that the court can issue an opinion on what a statute meant but didn't specify. Pandora's box can't contain so much BS.

MagnumLoad said:

---

I think it is strange that the court can issue an opinion on what a statute meant but didn't specify. Pandora's box can't contain so much BS.

---

Huh? What if they just ruled on the specific question and said the statute didn't allow something?

I think the OP is being a bit sarcastic since all the anti-tariff people assured us that corporations don't pay tariffs.

1939 said:

---

I think the OP is being a bit sarcastic since all the anti-tariff people assured us that corporations don't pay tariffs.

---

True its been ITs a tAX oN reGular PeoPLE

MemphisAg1 said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

---

Honest question. Do you manufacture overseas or do you import goods? It sounds like Trumps tariffs were working if the US is collecting billions of dollars and the consumer isn't paying more through inflation. Isn't this what we want as a country?

---

I'm not arguing against tariffs in all cases because they make sense in some applications. But I am pushing back on any notion that none of the tariffs showed up in inflation. There are plenty of data points in the media from nonpartisan economists that demonstrate some of that cost was passed onto consumers. Our inflation target has been 2% for at least a couple decades. PCE inflation came in at 3% in December and expected to notch up a bit in January. Tariffs are part of that. You can make the case the benefit is worth the cost but anybody clinging to a view that consumers aren't absorbing any tariff cost is being willfully blind to the facts.

---

A quick Google search is showing that the TTM inflation rate ended January 2026 was about 2.4%. While this is higher than the target of 2.0%, it's still lower than the average inflation rate over the past 20 years of 2.6%. In the grand scheme of things there has been virtually zero inflation associated with Trump's tariffs. Maybe you have a better metric than CPI that shows how these tariffs are impacting US consumers.

I'd love to see the calculations for any supposed refunds. There is no right answer, and probably not even good answers. Some lawyers and accountants and others will try and justify something. And those guys will likely be the only people that actually receive any money.

The left is fighting tariffs because it's Trump. Look what that goat poker is doing in NYC.

Next Marxist President is going to make tariffs seem like child's play

chilimuybueno said:

---

I'd love to see the calculations for any supposed refunds. There is no right answer, and probably not even good answers. Some lawyers and accountants and others will try and justify something. And those guys will likely be the only people that actually receive any money.

---

It's literally on a form that you filed with CBP. There is an actual answer to the dollar. How is it hard to calculate?

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

---

Honest question. Do you manufacture overseas or do you import goods? It sounds like Trumps tariffs were working if the US is collecting billions of dollars and the consumer isn't paying more through inflation. Isn't this what we want as a country?

---

The one that I first noticed was from a company based out of Switzerland that I buy materials from. There was a global trade adjustment fee of several hundred dollars each order. I called about it and was told it was a direct result of the tariffs. I also asked the rep from another supplier I do a lot of business with and was told they had increased their fees as well due to the new tariffs. I don't really know the exact details on how the tariffs work but I can tell you 100% they have increased my costs. If it's paying down our national debt I guess that's great but it is certainly not entirely at other countries expense.