|
Author
|
Topic: SCOTUS Rules Against Tariffs
|
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 217118
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 20, 2026 03:14 PM
  
There are a few other mechanisms that can be used, such as Section 301. It was actually a win because the Court gave its thumbs up to tariffs in its dissent—just not under that law being used because tariffs aren’t specifically
mentioned. Of course, Dems are lying about the ruling. The Court did not address the return of collected taxes, so it affects only the future. Section 301 is more cumbersome to implement.
IP: Logged |
Belage2
Knowflake Posts: 1601
From:
Registered: Jan 2025
|
posted February 20, 2026 03:29 PM
Quite a new development!Does that mean the current tariffs have to be removed or deactivated at once? Also, the other laws that might be used as alternatives, wouldn't they also be challenged in court? IP: Logged |
Belage2
Knowflake Posts: 1601
From:
Registered: Jan 2025
|
posted February 20, 2026 04:10 PM
DuplicateIP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 217118
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 20, 2026 06:29 PM
Some countries may try to get their money back. It depends on what the contracts say, but I'm doubtful it will be successful. The Trump Admin was prepared for the loss. The tariffs have been struck down but will eventually be replaced. President Trump said he will comply. He has ordered a new 10 percent global tariff under Section 122. It takes effect soon. The other laws like the WTO are more unilateral and give POTUS the right to tariff. President Trump just wanted to save time. It was difficult for the plaintiff government to argue an emergency when so many nations were tariffed. However, companies will have a remedy (countries will honor their trade agreements), so there will be some lawsuits. I'm thinking that President Trump will say if they want to do business in this country, they will let the tariff (as paid) alone and then replace it with a new mechanism. It is all negotiable. Sections 132 and 338 are also applicable.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 217118
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 20, 2026 07:33 PM
Check out Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent:“[N]umerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; the Trade Act of 1974; and the Tariff Act of 1930.” And: "In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by replying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs." IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 217118
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 21, 2026 05:23 PM
Now it is 15 percent for a global tariff.Bessent says that a combination of Sections 122, 232, and 301 will result in no change. IP: Logged |
Belage2
Knowflake Posts: 1601
From:
Registered: Jan 2025
|
posted February 24, 2026 03:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Check out Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent:“[N]umerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; the Trade Act of 1974; and the Tariff Act of 1930.” And: "In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by replying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs."
In other words, you can do it, but not THIS way... IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 217118
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 24, 2026 07:33 PM
Exactly.But that law does mention regulation of imports. IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
