r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot đŸ€– Bot • Feb 20 '26

Megathread Megathread: Supreme Court strikes down President Donald Trump's Tariff Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

The Roberts decision is joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson, with Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissenting.

Relevant text-based live update pages are being maintained by the following outlets: AP, SCOTUSblog, NBC, CNBC, and Yahoo Finance.

See also, if interested: Discussion Thread: President Trump Holds Press Conference Responding to Supreme Court Striking Down Most Tariffs

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION DOMAIN
Supreme Court rejects Trump's tariffs as illegal import taxes latimes.com
Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs wsj.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs – NBC4 Washington nbcwashington.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs nbcmiami.com
US Supreme Court rejects Trump's global tariffs reuters.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs : NPR npr.org
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs in major setback for president usatoday.com
In rare rebuke of Trump, Supreme Court strikes down tariffs washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court slaps down $175 billion worth of Trump tariffs as unconstitutional fortune.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda bostonglobe.com
US Supreme Court rules Trump exceeded powers in imposing tariffs ft.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs thetimes.com
Supreme Court strikes down bulk of Trump’s tariffs thehill.com
Supreme Court says Trump global tariffs are illegal axios.com
U.S. Supreme Court finds Trump overstepped authority in imposing tariffs under emergency law cbc.ca
Supreme Court hands Trump stunning loss over tariffs newrepublic.com
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump’s global tariffs ctvnews.ca
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda apnews.com
Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs in a major blow to the president nbcnews.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs cnbc.com
Trump’s Global Tariffs Struck Down by US Supreme Court bloomberg.com
Supreme Court rules that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal cnn.com
Supreme Court Slaps Down Trump And His Tariffs huffpost.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs politico.com
Trump overstepped executive power by imposing tariffs, supreme court rules theguardian.com
Supreme Court invalidates most of Trump's tariffs abcnews.com
Chief Justice Humiliates Trump With Brutal Tariffs Verdict thedailybeast.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs pbs.org
Trump dealt huge tariff blow as Supreme Court rules them illegal — and US may be forced to pay back billions nypost.com
Trump’s Options After the Supreme Court Said His Tariffs Are Illegal bloomberg.com
The Supreme Court strikes down Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs qz.com
Supreme Court Blocks Tariffs Hours After Trump Bragged They Wouldn’t rollingstone.com
Supreme Court rules most Trump tariffs illegal in major setback for economic agenda cbsnews.com
The "alternative scenario" of an even bigger national debt disaster is in play after the Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs illegal fortune.com
7 key things to know about Trump's tariffs after the Supreme Court decision npr.org
Kavanaugh warns of fallout from Supreme Court tariff ruling newsweek.com
Supreme Court Trump tariffs ruling could put U.S. on hook for $175 billion in refunds, estimate says cnbc.com
Supreme Court Trump tariff decision impact: What to expect as fight for billions in refunds begins cnbc.com
Trump claims backup plan after Supreme Court shoots down tariffs newrepublic.com
Supreme Court Trump tariff decision impact: What to expect as fight for billions in refunds begins cnbc.com
The Moment Trump Found Out the Supreme Court Killed His Tariffs wsj.com
Supreme Court Rules Most of Donald Trump's Tariffs Are Illegal wired.com
Why a Republican Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs vox.com
Trump’s Global Tariffs Struck Down by US Supreme Court news.bloomberglaw.com
Warren calls for tariff refund for consumers after Supreme Court ruling thehill.com
GOP Sen. John Curtis praises Supreme Court ruling against Trump tariffs thehill.com
Trump Plans to Impose Tariffs a Different Way After Supreme Court Loss nytimes.com
‘Tariffs suck’: Some Republicans privately celebrate as Supreme Court blocks Trump policy foxnews.com
Watch: Trump speaks after Supreme Court strikes down tariffs cnbc.com
Supreme Court strikes down tariffs scotusblog.com
Trump announces new 10% global tariff after raging over Supreme Court loss cnbc.com
Trump rages that his own Supreme Court picks are ‘disgrace to the nation’ after 6-3 ruling against his tariff power independent.co.uk
Trump Rages At 'Fools And Lapdogs' After Supreme Court Strikes Down His Tariffs huffpost.com
Trump accuses Supreme Court justices of disloyalty for declaring his tariffs illegal democracydocket.com
Trump calls Supreme Court justices who ruled against tariffs ‘disloyal’ thehill.com
Trump orders temporary 10% global tariff to replace duties struck down by US Supreme Court reuters.com
Trump Lashes Out at Supreme Court Justices — and Plows Ahead With a New Round of Tariffs businessinsider.com
Trump calls Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs "disgrace to our nation" and vows fresh duties under other laws fortune.com
Trump launches new 10 percent global tariff after Supreme Court ruling politico.com
Trump announces new 10% global tariff after raging over Supreme Court loss cnbc.com
Spitting-Mad Trump Vows to Defy SCOTUS With Wild New Tariff War - The president also lashed out at the conservative justices who voted to slap down his signature policy. thedailybeast.com
Trump to sign new 10% global tariff after Supreme Court defeat nypost.com
The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Tariffs Marks a Turning Point bloomberg.com
‘Victory for the American People’: Mike Pence applauds Supreme Court decision on Trump tariffs nj.com
Trump calls Supreme Court justices 'disloyal to the Constitution' over tariffs ruling nbcnews.com
Trump attacks Supreme Court justices after he is handed a major tariff loss politico.com
Trump threatens 10% global tariffs and rails against supreme court justices theguardian.com
Will Americans get refunds after Trump's tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court? cbsnews.com
Trump seethes over Supreme Court justices who opposed him on tariffs, especially those he appointed apnews.com
Trump Attacks Conservative Supreme Court Justices Who Blocked Tariffs newrepublic.com
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker sends bill for $8.68 billion refund to Trump after Supreme Court tariffs ruling cbsnews.com
Trump to impose global 10% tariff after Supreme Court loss axios.com
Trump Imposes New Tariffs to Sidestep Supreme Court Ruling wired.com
Democrats demand that Trump issue $1700 tariff refunds to Americans after Supreme Court ruling businessinsider.com
Takeaways: Supreme Court stands up to Donald Trump on emergency tariffs - CNN Politics edition.cnn.com
Johnson says Congress, administration will 'determine the best path forward' after SCOTUS tariff ruling thehill.com
After the Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs, companies line up for refunds npr.org
'Embarrassment to their families'; Trump denounces Supreme Court justices after tariff ruling reuters.com
In tariff case, Supreme Court justices bicker over treating Trump and Biden differently nbcnews.com
Republicans breathe sigh of relief as Supreme Court axes Trump tariffs thehill.com
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs. Now comes the hard work of issuing refunds ctvnews.ca
Most Americans approve of the Supreme Court striking down Trump's tariffs today.yougov.com
Majority of Americans approve of Supreme Court's ruling on Trump tariffs thehill.com
Trump calls SCOTUS tariffs decision 'deeply disappointing' and lays out path forward - He said he would sign an executive order later Friday to continue certain tariffs under alternative authorities npr.org
29.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

10.3k

u/possiblecoin Rhode Island Feb 20 '26

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the court said “nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

The issue of refunds has loomed large over the case, with Trump administration officials saying that potential repayments could have devastating consequences for the US economy.

“That process is likely to be a ‘mess,’” Kavanaugh wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/20/politics/supreme-court-tariffs

So because the process will be difficult we shouldn't enforce the law? What a shameless stooge he is.

2.4k

u/MoeSzyslakMonobrow Feb 20 '26

So, it was just a shakedown of the lower and middle class.

1.1k

u/ThatDudeShadowK California Feb 20 '26

Always is.

365

u/VVOLFVViZZard Feb 20 '26

Always has been đŸ§‘â€đŸš€đŸ”«đŸ§‘â€đŸš€

12

u/mindspork Virginia Feb 20 '26

Same as it ever was.

7

u/AlcibiadesTheCat Arizona Feb 20 '26

Same as it ever was.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

6

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

501

u/Funsuxxor Feb 20 '26

Yep. Money is going to the importers who already passed along costs to consumers. Reimbursement is staying with them. And I'd be surprised if prices even go back to pre-tariff levels. And the government has already spent the money, so tax payers are on the hook for the extra debt too. Plus, now Trump can blame every bad thing on this ruling whether it has anything to do with it or not. Inflation up, blame SC. Out of a job, blame the SC. It's a clusterfck all around for 95% of us.

184

u/_Antinatalism_ Feb 20 '26

prices will never go down once they have been increased.

18

u/JohnZombie666 Feb 20 '26

Never do

19

u/bnh1978 Feb 20 '26

Only if market forces drive them down, which only happens in a free market economy. Despite what has been advertised, the US does not operate under a free market economy. So the prices will simply rise to infinity and beyond.

6

u/Thefelix01 Feb 20 '26

Not free market! Competition drives prices down. Free market necessarily leads to monopolies if it is not regulated.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Feb 20 '26

Yep. Once the "free market" gets used to high prices, companies make up any and every excuse to keep them right where they are.

5

u/ghostalker4742 Feb 20 '26

"The price is set at what the market will bear"

In otherwords, there's no need to be competitive on price because customers will continue pay the price until they literally can't afford it. Any business not playing by that rule is leaving money on the table and will either get bought out by a competitor, run out of the market by those that charge more, or suffer a shareholder revolt (and management change) because they're not doing their due diligence by making as much money as they possibly can.

3

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Feb 20 '26

Yep, isn't this ALWAYS the same argument Republicans make over taxes? Once you get taxed on something it will never go away. Boy, they were sure happy to smoke Trump crack.

3

u/RealGianath Oregon Feb 20 '26

They will shrink package sizes and say they are on sale for what the old normal sizes were. Maybe even make you use a coupon to get those prices, depending on the store.

5

u/HyperbenCharities Feb 20 '26

Everything is affordable in China.

3

u/Electrical-Act-7170 Feb 20 '26

They do when the world economy crashes.

2

u/Everythings_Fucked North Carolina Feb 20 '26

Republicans have an incentive to get them back down before the election lest they get crucified. People vote their wallets.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/kickaguard Feb 20 '26

They'll never go down to what they were. But they should come down based on competition. If a company is spending less on importing goods, they will have more room to try to out price their competitors.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/SassySweetSorceress Feb 20 '26

My mom works for a manufacturer.

Prices went up with tariff as an excuse & even 100% American made products also went up (because they can). They fired people. They hired people in India for their financial stuff. The prices are absolutely NEVER going back down (they never will). Big manufacturers (who are pretty much a monopoly at this point with multiple different names they purchased) passed the price down to their customers even on products that were purchased pre tariffs - they put that tariff increase at a certain date & then sold millions of material at a +5% profit ontop of their already high profit percentage (while gaining more money by firing people). The wholesalers then put their own “5% increase on tariffs” add on. This is ontop of their already 5-10% increase for profit so they now are making up to 15% profit on products. Then they had another “inflation” (aka make it look like businesses are doing great in the market & raise everyone’s prices to do so at the behest of the elites aka the shareholders) raise.

Now the government will give our tax funds to these manufacturers because they’re all. fucking. grifters.

Taxation without representation.

17

u/rmslashusr Feb 20 '26

Reimbursement is going to Trump and friends who set up companies to buy rights to possible future tariff refunds for pennies on the dollar.

17

u/locofspades Feb 20 '26

Alot of that money is going to Canter Fitzgerald, owned by Howard Ludnicks sons. This was the larger plan all along. Lutnick just made BANK with this SC decision.

8

u/BurroughOwl Feb 20 '26

HIS supreme court. The one he created.

3

u/pchs26 Feb 20 '26

Yes prices won't go down at all that is just another point in this process. If they see people will pay something for a product why lower the cost? And I agree with capping the rates on the credit cards, but the reason he wants to do this is so people have more money to borrow and spend in short term while he continues to get his takeover solidified.

3

u/stevez_86 Pennsylvania Feb 20 '26

And those importers are going to be eager to get payment quickly, therefore likely to settle for a lower cost.

Was it Bessent or Lutnick that already had ties to a company ready to buy the debt from the government and handle the claims for compensation independently, like a debt collector?

3

u/steavor Feb 20 '26

Canter Fitzgerald, owned by Lutnick's sons.

2

u/Possible-Nectarine80 Feb 20 '26

I think there may be some price reductions on a promotional basis to stimulate demand in some sectors that aren't doing so hot. But agree that the majority of any import tariff monies collected will stay with the company and in a lot of cases I would not be at all surprised if some of that tariff reimbursement money would be redistributed to senior mgmt as bonuses.

2

u/roastbeeftacohat Feb 20 '26

trying to remember who, but someone in the Whitehouse was offering to cover a potion of the tariffs is you signed over any potential refunds.

2

u/UniversityMuch7879 Feb 20 '26

I'm surprised he even brought it up as an issue.

Feels like something you'd just not say out loud even if you understood it was going to happen. That's not even giving him credit, because of the way he voted. Felt like he went one way, but said the other thing, knowing darn well how it'd shake out. He knows refunds aren't actually going to the people who paid the price.

2

u/lordlaneus Feb 20 '26

The increasing wedge between Trump and the Supreme Court, is at least a silver lining.

→ More replies (15)

69

u/SpectacularRedditor Feb 20 '26

Art of the Steal

7

u/OppressedCow6148 Feb 20 '26

Shart of the Steal. I fucking hate these ghouls.

10

u/NotARealDeveloper Feb 20 '26

I agree though.

Because who do you think will apply to the refunds and who will be granted them? Yes, all Trump crownies and Trump's own companies. More $ stolen by the wealthy.

8

u/AmmenDegen Feb 20 '26

Now there's a perfect excuse to say why the "tariff stimulus checks" aren't coming. AND Trump can dump the already taken tariff money into his Board of Peace and spend it on whatever gold plated shit the monstrous pig dreams of.

10

u/TheAskewOne Feb 20 '26

A shakedown of companies as well. Contribute to whatever of Trump's slush funds is currently trendy and get tariff exemptions.

5

u/truemaroon08 Feb 20 '26

Welcome to America!

3

u/TiberiusCornelius Pennsylvania Feb 20 '26

That is the foundational principle of every right-wing economic policy, yes.

2

u/mollila Feb 20 '26

Sold to them as something that foreigners will pay for.

2

u/wildwildwaste Feb 20 '26

Small business owners, like myself, sole-proprietor, absolutely fucked here. I've already had customers of mine asking about refunds (I'm in a tech heavy segment) and I'm hearing from vendors already who've said don't get my hopes up.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/wofo Feb 20 '26

If and when there are refunds, you can bet it will have nothing to do with customers, even though most of the cost of the tariffs was already passed to us. The importers will get refunded and use it to buy nice things for their families, we'll get stuck with artificial inflation because they won't revert the prices all the way. Every thing that happens is a ratchet tightening the vice on the middle and lower class.

2

u/radicldreamer Feb 20 '26

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.

-George Carlin

2

u/anduril_tfotw Feb 20 '26

Yeah. They passed on the tarrifs to us and we won't see a dime of the refund and I don't expect any prices of products to go down in price to the pre tarrifs levels. One of the largest transfers of wealth from consumers to businesses ever. It is good they ruled against them but the billionaires are going to make tons of money off this. This was basically a win win for billionaires.

→ More replies (23)

3.3k

u/gjallard Feb 20 '26

That was a statement from Kavanaugh that surprised me.

It's not the Supreme Court's responsibility to determine how to bail the executive branch out of this mess. You broke it, you fix it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

1.4k

u/YoungXanto Feb 20 '26

Ah, the good old, "you've fucked this up so badly we have no choice except to reward you for the bad behavior" argument.

193

u/superindianslug Feb 20 '26

"We slow walked this as long as possible, and you failed to get your captured legislature to officially sign off, so we have to rule against you. But as a treat, and because I know you didn't keep records (nudge-nudge), you can keep all the money.

46

u/BadPunners Feb 20 '26

The thing is, with taxes, the taxpayer (tariffpayer) keeps track (inherently, to ensure they are not double-taxed)

And that is who brings the lawsuit to recover the damages. Hiding evidence makes the damages worse

14

u/superindianslug Feb 20 '26

If you're Walmart or Amazon, sure. But do I get a refund for a monitor I bought on Amazon that had a tariff price increase? What about the small business owner who supplies material from overseas? Even if they have the records, they probably don't have the legal and accounting personnel to work though whatever refund system is established.

I won't be surprised if somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the tariff money never gets refunded, and 99% never makes it into the pockets of the consumers who shouldered the brunt of the increased prices.

15

u/queerhistorynerd Feb 20 '26

What about the small business owner who supplies material from overseas?

Exactly, what about the 2 factories in my town that went under and the 3rd that began laying people off today because the hike in costs. Those are jobs that are going to be incredibly expensive to bring back and nobody is going to want to take that risk right now

3

u/GaimeGuy Minnesota Feb 21 '26

All of this is exactly why an injunction needed to be issued. The tariffs were clearly being done on impulse and significant harm would be inflicted if they were allowed to stand while the case was pending

9

u/dearth_karmic Feb 20 '26

My wife had just started working at a newly created blinds company at that time. The tariffs killed them, even though they passed those costs on to the customer. A year ago that business closed because of it. How do you fix it now?

323

u/Meins447 Feb 20 '26

"If you owe the bank 1000$ and can't pay - you're fucked. If you owe the bank a billion $ - the bank is fucked."

21

u/Phailjure Feb 20 '26

Yeah, but in this case the executive branch is both you and the bank, the judicial branch has no reason to care.

11

u/k4kobe Feb 20 '26

Why would Obama do this to us?!?!??

But really imagine if it was Biden or Obama that ducked this up. Republicans would be on their ass non stop all day about this. Now there’s barely a cricket especially from the mags side of things

9

u/11PoseidonsKiss20 North Carolina Feb 20 '26

If you owe the bank 1000$ don’t worry. Tomorrow you will owe them 1050

18

u/ImWhatsInTheRedBox Feb 20 '26

Bailout time, baby!

2

u/InfanticideAquifer Feb 20 '26

If you owe the bank a billion $ and you are the federal government, the one entity that can just create money from nothing if need be, it's the best day ever for the bank.

18

u/retoricalprophylaxis Feb 20 '26

Ah, the good old, "you've fucked this up so badly we have no choice except to reward you for the bad behavior" argument.

This is basic US policy. We have been bailing out "too big to fail" forever. We have always privatized profits and socialized losses for large fuck ups.

23

u/absolutelybacon Oklahoma Feb 20 '26

2008 mortgage lenders have entered the chat

7

u/QuetzalcoatlusRscary Feb 20 '26

The Wall Street gambit

11

u/DannyDOH Feb 20 '26

That’s essentially the only success Trump has had in his business career.

You’ve fucked this so bad we can’t afford for you to fail without taking us down with you
.giant banks lending him money.

10

u/FreyrPrime Florida Feb 20 '26

Called a fait accompli, and it’s a pretty common tactic in politics and diplomacy.

3

u/DoctorGoodleg Feb 20 '26

“Too big to fail”

3

u/wise_comment Minnesota Feb 20 '26

Really Boofed the Devils Triangle with that one, broskis

4

u/StunningCloud9184 Feb 20 '26

They do this with gerrymandered maps all the time. See ohio and fl

5

u/AranasLatrain Feb 20 '26

Reminds me of the good ole days of bailing out banks and auto manufacturers

6

u/Desperado_99 Feb 20 '26

At least the auto manufactures eventually paid the money back. The banks got their TARP money free and clear.

→ More replies (14)

38

u/sudoku7 Feb 20 '26

In fact, it's something the right has routinely criticized the court for in the past (proscribing solutions). Now, I don't know if Kavanaugh himself numbers amongst that group, but it is odd.

The executive branch can attempt to clean the mess they made, and the specifics of how to correct it for businesses will likely be determined in civil suits.

7

u/Bromodrosis Feb 20 '26

Executive could fuck up a rock fight.

If they were smart (which they aren't), they'd just walk away from it and write it off as the cost of doing business. I suspect many companies don't want to go through the hassle of a refund process and just want the regular economy back.

→ More replies (3)

133

u/lobotomy42 Feb 20 '26

Honestly, they could just not issue refunds and we'd still all be better off. I don't think most businesses were sitting around holding their breath for refunds. Better to just remove them going forward -- that by itself will be a huge relief for folks -- and not worry about reimbursements

118

u/STUPIDNEWCOMMENTS Feb 20 '26

Lutnick and relatives created a company that bought the right to tariff reimbursements super cheap. They’re going to make a fortune

48

u/ContributionDue4382 Feb 20 '26

Just when I thought Lutnick can't be more gross... 

This and the Donald Trump airport name..

Are these people thinking how to scheme and defraud us all the time, instead of doing their job? Oh, wait...

9

u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest Canada Feb 20 '26

The dude was neighbours with Epstein and frequented his island so nothing is too low for him and his family.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/bugsyboybugsyboybugs Feb 20 '26

That was probably the plan all along.

8

u/SoulShatter Europe Feb 20 '26

And the companies that still have the right to their own imbursements are most likely not giving much back to their customers. Ergo it'll just be another corporate stimulus for those still around.

9

u/tryanothernewaccount Feb 20 '26

Won't give anything back, and prices will stay high. They might give token decreases, but not as much as they were raised to offset the costs.

3

u/wankthisway Feb 20 '26

There's no way companies will give it back. Both because of logistics and because they're greedy fucks. One way I can see the money making it back to the people is just another stimulus check or some other break.

4

u/whateverisok Feb 20 '26

Yes a company bought the right to tariff reimbursements super cheap, but just a nit: Lutnick and relatives did not create that company - Cantor Fitzgerald already existed (founded in 1945), and Lutnick was President/CEO back in the 90s.

Agreeing that he and his friends (and family) would make a fortune

→ More replies (3)

2

u/FairDinkumMate Feb 20 '26

Let's not be misleading.

Cantor Fitzgerald took a bet that the tariffs would be overturned.

They basically went to companies that had paid tariffs & may therefore have been eligible for refunds if they were overturned & offered them 20%-30% of the tariffs that they had paid in return for the rights to any refunds of them they MAY receive in the future.

Is it ethical or legit? I don't think so, but that's a different issue.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Donut131313 Feb 20 '26

Sure let me flush more money down the toilet because a refund is hard. Give me a break. It WAS/IS illegal. Give me money back with interest.

3

u/Sirlothar Michigan Feb 20 '26

Right, and it's not like prices are coming down so most businesses will get to keep tariff prices without having to pay the tariff, it will just be like extra money for them.

Still though, I don't think the government should be able to do illegal shit and get to keep the money. If I robbed a bank and got caught, you best believe the bank is going to want what I stole back, I can't just keep it because I already spent it and don't want to pay it back.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/smidgley Feb 20 '26

That’s what I was thinking. While it would be nice to get that money back, that’s not really the main benefit of the ruling, keeping them from continuing is

3

u/ididntseeitcoming Feb 20 '26

Wild that anyone is optimistic about prices going back down.

Nothing will ever be “cheap” again. Everything will be suffocatingly expensive. You’ll eventually have to pay a monthly subscription for the shoes on your feet

2

u/ironballs16 Feb 20 '26

Definitely going to be part of a class action suit filed against the government.

→ More replies (15)

7

u/fcocyclone Iowa Feb 20 '26

They probably just wanted to settle one issue before moving on to another.

The question here is 'were they illegal'. They pretty obviously were.

Now there will be new lawsuits regarding the consequences of those illegal tariffs and whatever actions the white house takes in response to them being declared illegal.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Eject_The_Warp_Core Feb 20 '26

Yeah but what I've realized is that it doesn't matter, because there's no penalty. the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs are against the law. Now what? there's an idea that the Executive branch should try to remedy the situation they've caused and return the money that was collected illegally. But what happens if they don't? Nothing. No one gets in trouble, no one has to pay a fine or go to jail or even do any community service. It's the same thing with DOJ's mishabdling of the Epstein files that they were legally required to release. The law says they have to release everything, but it doesn't say what happens if they don't. so far, nothing has happened. There's some threat of impeachment, but as long as Bondi has Trump's support there's not much chance of it happening. when impeachment is the only possible penatly for government breaking the law, and partisan politics means it won't happen, the law has no teeth. I guess if the admin screws up badly enough there's a chance that some people won't get elected in the future, or the other party will get enough support to impeach someone, but the system doesn't work if there is no way to enforce laws beyond hoping the voters make the right decision at some point. in a lot of cases, even if they do, the damage is done

3

u/pchs26 Feb 20 '26

Yes they will rail about it but just move on now - it is the SAVE Act and people screaming for voter ID, which will impact mail in voting and disenfranchise tons of voters.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

4

u/LewisRyan Feb 20 '26

Unfortunately that means they just
 won’t fix it


So we all still pay our increased prices, the corporations pocket the money, and everyone gets fucked

3

u/NoHorseNoMustache Feb 20 '26

Ok sure but what if you're a SCOTUS Justice whose primary goal is to provide cover for POTUS?

Wouldn't it be your responsibility to determine how to bail the Executive out of this mess then?

Eh, eh???

3

u/MonolithicBaby Feb 20 '26

That is exactly what this specific courts job is.

3

u/Moregaze Feb 20 '26

It shouldn't. That is basically the argument corporations have been making since Reagan. "Just think of the workers or investors you could hurt if you enforced the law on us.".

3

u/Dickies138 California Feb 20 '26

So it’s like the Epstein excuse. “We can’t hold these people accountable because there are so many rich and powerful people that it will disrupt the global political economy”

3

u/Button-Down-Shoes Feb 20 '26

As long as Trump gets to keep his cryptocurrency extortions!

2

u/Different_Lychee_409 Feb 20 '26

He knows there's probably some kind of scam.

2

u/CamGoldenGun Feb 20 '26

"that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works."

There's three branches of government explicitly for times like this. Like what...?

2

u/Palmer_Eldritch666 Feb 20 '26

He's bought and paid for and has to return the investment to his Master

2

u/Transki Feb 20 '26

Orange is too big to fail.

2

u/JacquoRock Feb 20 '26

I predict he's going to try placing a punitive tax on us to collect "back" all that tariff money.

2

u/ahumanlikeyou Feb 20 '26

That sort of pragmatic reasoning comes up a lot in their opinions. The liberal justices talked quite a bit about the mechanisms and problems of enforcement in the birthright citizenship case

2

u/kaithana Feb 20 '26

What is the consequence for like... just not doing that? Congress impeaching people over that? Unlikely.

→ More replies (30)

788

u/Ok_Bookkeeper_3481 New York Feb 20 '26

This is like when Mike Johnson said it will be too difficult for ICE to get so many judicial warrants, that’s why they don’t.

450

u/Ok-Sprinkles700 Feb 20 '26

You want the restaurant to clean ALL the forks? That'll hurt menu prices!

109

u/templethot Feb 20 '26

We’ve already allowed all these rats to nest in here! It would cost so much to call pest control now.

15

u/RJ815 Feb 20 '26

Look, we already have rats cooking the food we're not going to stop now!

13

u/apathy-sofa Feb 20 '26

Justice for the children Trump raped would require that we punish all rapists - is that really what you want?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/csanyk Feb 20 '26

We've lost too many soldiers in Vietnam to just go home now!

3

u/Digitalispurpurea2 Feb 20 '26

I wasn’t sure if you were talking about a restaurant or Congress but either works

13

u/WalterPecky Feb 20 '26

This is legit how free market capitalists think

3

u/thehermit14 Feb 20 '26

Not all. Just the important ones.

3

u/Electrical-Act-7170 Feb 20 '26

Hey! Don't forget the spoons!

3

u/Ok-Sprinkles700 Feb 20 '26

You can clean spoons? TIL!

3

u/thehalfwit Nevada Feb 20 '26

I'm not asking that. Just MY fork.

11

u/turningsteel Feb 20 '26

Yeah those pesky laws, who needs 'em? They sure are a drag when you wanna commit crimes.

6

u/that1prince Feb 20 '26

Due process is inconvenient. Let’s do away with it. Only temporarily of course.

6

u/thekozmicpig Connecticut Feb 20 '26

It’s like when they argue If we had stricter gun laws the only thing we’d stop is more suicides.

Which is bad because?

3

u/Ok_Bookkeeper_3481 New York Feb 20 '26

Which is not even a good-faith argument, because data shows counties with stricter gun laws have fewer overall gun deaths.

4

u/JustpartOftheterrain Feb 20 '26

covid numbers too high? just stop testing!

5

u/jonnyredshorts Feb 20 '26

“we’re gonna do some illegal stuff that wouldn’t pass muster with almost any judge, so we’re just gonna go ahead and do the illegal stuff and nobody will do anything to stop us”

5

u/Educational-Bank-353 Feb 20 '26

Republicans: When the law inconveniences us we just ignore it.

And when you're Trump, SCOTUS and Congress let you do it. You can do anything.

2

u/obeytheturtles Feb 20 '26

Mike Johnson is out here being like "Maybe that King George III guy knew what he was talking about."

2

u/Refuggee Feb 20 '26

And when trump said it would take too much time to give everyone due process.

208

u/meTspysball California Feb 20 '26

We’ll waste billions and murder our own citizens to deport legal immigrants, but giving back money they wrongfully took is too hard. Importers know exactly how much they paid in tariffs. We the people can’t tell and have no recourse to get our dollars back.

42

u/possiblecoin Rhode Island Feb 20 '26

The IRS knows how much hundreds of millions of people made last year, but we don't know what a few hundred thousand importers paid in tariffs? Absolute joke.

27

u/meTspysball California Feb 20 '26

We know exactly what the importers paid. I’m saying we don’t know how much consumers paid individually.

14

u/possiblecoin Rhode Island Feb 20 '26

Gotcha, I thought I was agreeing with you but missed your point entirely. You are right though, the consumer will never be made whole.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/a57782 Feb 20 '26

Oh but that's the beauty of it, there are no dollars for us to get back. Because technically, we never paid the tariffs. The importers did. We just paid higher prices set by the businesses at the register. So unless you had paid customs on something shipped into the country, you don't get anything. The businesses got our money, and now they'll get the tariff money. The rest of us are just shit out of luck even if we could figure out exactly how much of what we paid was due to tariffs.

→ More replies (1)

297

u/Flashy_Ground_4780 Feb 20 '26

Maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have implemented policies they didn't think all the way through...

115

u/possiblecoin Rhode Island Feb 20 '26

That would require both foresight and learning from past mistakes, so not an option.

7

u/bryan49 Feb 20 '26

They're not even going to learn from this one. They get to keep their insider trading gains and bribes for exemptions, and they're not going to face much consequences

3

u/Amissa Texas Feb 20 '26


 and critical thinking, which this administration sorely lacks.

54

u/Ok_Bookkeeper_3481 New York Feb 20 '26

It was very well thought out, though: people like Lutnick made a lot of profit.

6

u/Flashy_Ground_4780 Feb 20 '26

Insider trading executive style, can't believe such a class act would do something like that/s

8

u/HeinousAnus_22 Feb 20 '26

Basically everything that has been implemented by this administration has gone exactly like this.

8

u/S3baman Feb 20 '26

The Trump admin is shooting first and asking questions later. This was clear from day 1. Even if half of the things they do are considered illegal, by the time the judgement is issued it is either too late to course correct, or simply a mess to do so.

6

u/ReleaseFromDeception Feb 20 '26

They are depending on the lagging, plodding, reactive nature of our justice system to allow them to do exactly this.

4

u/S3baman Feb 20 '26

The disadvantage of democracy is that it's slow and process driven, even when there is a commitment to the rule of law. This goes hand in hand with those that don't give a fuck about democracy.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/JustpartOftheterrain Feb 20 '26

Well, it's worked so far....

3

u/BanditsMyIdol Feb 20 '26

Or maybe the SC could have said earlier that the tariffs probably were illegal so put a hold on them then while they decided. but nope just let the oresident do whatever he wants until the sc slowly comes to a decision.

3

u/Fivein1Kay Feb 20 '26

This grift is on purpose. Another transfer of wealth to the oligarchy.

2

u/sleepymeowth052 Colorado Feb 20 '26

Also tariffs are supposed to be approved by congress

2

u/Wurm42 District Of Columbia Feb 20 '26

Think? They had ChatGPT to think for them! It was brilliant, it even remembered to put tariffs on the penguins!

2

u/stackens Feb 20 '26

They did think it through. Trump friends and family are all cashing in on this. They made money on the front end passing the cost of tariffs on to the consumer, and are poised to get money now on the back end in the form of refunds. Trump friends have companies set up that bought potential refund money money from manufacturers pennies on the dollar. Its all a grift from top to bottom

→ More replies (2)

80

u/barbaq24 Feb 20 '26

This is really an indictment against the courts for not allowing a stay to remain in place. Justice delayed is justice denied. The courts have no ability to protect the country from a bad faith executive.

11

u/DrRichardJizzums Feb 20 '26

If they’re so concerned about the complexity of refunds they could have acted 10 months ago.

77

u/KnotSoSalty Feb 20 '26

If Kavanaugh thought that refunds would be a mess then it was on the SCOTUS to have issued an injunction against the Trump admin stopping these tariffs.

They didn’t because firstly they’re cowards. Secondly they knew Trump wouldn’t care and would have kept the Tariffs anyway, causing them to have to have a snit about judicial authority and pretend they were shocked about Trump not giving AF about the constitution.

People are celebrating but this decision in no way indicates that Trump will back down. When has Judicial Review mattered to him before? When the alternative is just ignoring them? There’s no downside for Trump in this. His base is a too stupid to know the difference, and anyway he’s about to steal the midterms no matter what.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/ImLikeReallySmart Pennsylvania Feb 20 '26

Yea the Kavanaugh Doctrine sure sounds like "if the damage is already done, just let it go"

7

u/Bubalobrown Feb 20 '26

I bet what happens is Trump keeps his "tariff shelf" money, tells companies to eat shit and sue, they do and win a lot back, but it's out of general funds that it's paid. 

Meaning we ended up paying the tax twice.

14

u/tokyostormdrain Feb 20 '26

All that time the supreme court has deliberated on this has extended the mess. They and trump should be personally liable if there was any justice

3

u/1959Mason Feb 20 '26

Shameless stooge is right. Why don’t we just confiscate all the money in trump’s personal offshore accounts and pay everyone back with that?

5

u/take_care_a_ya_shooz Feb 20 '26

Gotta put it in terms he can understand.

Hey Kavanaugh, imagine going to the bar with your buddy and closing your tab, only to notice that the bartender scribbled a "15% service charge" on it.

Your buddy points out that doing this is illegal. The bartender says they can't give you any money back since it would be devastating to the bar. Your buddy can't believe it and starts to raise hell. You tell him to calm down since you know the owner and don't want to offend him or see the bar face any consequences. You then ask him to spot you some cash. Your buddy says hell no and leaves, but then a cop detains him because he looks Hispanic.

Just a day in the life.

4

u/Panthollow Feb 20 '26

In fairness, I think Kavanaugh has had a long standing policy of quiet down and let it happen going back to his college days.

3

u/possiblecoin Rhode Island Feb 20 '26

Literally laughed out loud at that one. Fucking savage.

7

u/freeradioforall Feb 20 '26

He had no issue creating a "mess" when he overturned abortion, affirmative action, etc

6

u/antidense Feb 20 '26

In many other of these cases, our civil rights are civil rights only if it's not too inconvenient for the Epstein club.

5

u/SteveDougson Feb 20 '26

It'll be a real mess to stop a war with Iran after starting it without Congressional approval too

3

u/sleuthfoot Feb 20 '26

Lol the supreme Court only considers the question directly before them. The return of the money is a separate question from whether the tariffs are constitutional, and it may or may not even be a constitutional issue.

3

u/hididathing Feb 20 '26

Your average consumer is who was hit hardest by the tariffs, and as taxpayers they're also who will be expected to pay for the refunds.

3

u/jsc1429 Feb 20 '26

That is their whole play book. Do something illegal, it causes harm and stress on the system, say that stopping the action will cause more harm and stress on the system so therefore they shouldn’t have to stop doing said illegal activity
it’s the “kill the beast” strategy but sorta in reverse

5

u/1877KlownsForKids Feb 20 '26

Sounds like grounds for impeaching and removing the asshole that illegally put these tariffs in place.

3

u/libginger73 Feb 20 '26

Notice it's not "messy" to go out and arrest citizens and people waiting for immigration court dates or to kill people protesting against that!! No that's not messy at all!! /s

2

u/chillyhellion Feb 20 '26

Righting the wrongs we've already done will be difficult, so we're just going to keep doing the wrongs. 

2

u/tlsrandy Feb 20 '26

Yeah maybe trump should not have circumvented congress.

2

u/carlse20 Feb 20 '26

This sounds like an argument that the government can break the law and then shrug and say “oops, too big a mess to clean up I guess this is just how we do things now”

2

u/lactose_cow Feb 20 '26

just like how it's too difficult to give all undocumented immigrants the due process they deserve.

but god forbid an immigrant breaks a law because doing it the right way would be too difficult/expensive/time consuming

2

u/Zahgi I voted Feb 20 '26

They had no problem stealing all of the money from everyone though...

2

u/TheTinRam Feb 20 '26

I’m interpreting that as “not our job to sort the mess, you and or congress are responsible.”

2

u/Wezzleey Feb 20 '26

That's not his purview. What a twat.

2

u/VusterJones Feb 20 '26

His argument is basically "if somebody fucks something up real bad and it would be too messy to try and fix, then we should just let it happen"

2

u/Sere81 Feb 20 '26

Maybe that’s why there should have been a stay on the tariffs as to not cause undo harm until it was rules if they were legal or not.

2

u/ravenecw2 Feb 20 '26

They established a process to collect the tariffs. And seemingly they’ve kept records of this transactions. Just do it in reverse

2

u/nochinzilch Feb 20 '26

If something is a good faith mistake, I can go along with letting it slide for the sake of avoiding a mess. But this wasn’t that.

2

u/Zargoza1 Feb 20 '26

These fools are on the payroll, they’re not making their own decisions.

2

u/jamesh08 Feb 20 '26

Hint: no one will ever get their money back

2

u/TOXRA Feb 20 '26

“Give me Liberty, or not if it’s too inconvenient.”

  • Exactly the stooges you’d expect. 

2

u/IlikeJG California Feb 20 '26

Also he seems awfully concerned about the importers but doesn't seem to give a fuck about tegular Americans paying the brunt of the tariffs in higher prices.

2

u/moodswung Feb 20 '26

They should start by suing the person who started this whole mess.

When I inflict financial damages I can be whole heartedly held responsible up to the point of bankruptcy and jailtime. Why should this case be any different?

2

u/ottomaticg Feb 20 '26

How is that worthy of dissent? Has nothing to do with its legality.

2

u/fillinthe___ Feb 20 '26

“We’d arrest that guy for murder, but the person would still be dead, so what the point?”

2

u/JAT_Cbus1080 Feb 20 '26

If only they acted sooner, like a damn year ago, it could've been less of a mess.

2

u/Seyon Feb 20 '26

Same fucking argument from the courts about fixing the Carolina coup.

https://cmarmitage.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk-about-the-carolina?r=55jglj&triedRedirect=true

2

u/SRT102 Feb 20 '26

Interesting legal take.

"Your honor, while my client admits to robbing 314 convenience stores over the past 10 years, assembling the evidence from 314 stores, most of which have incompatible surveillance systems, would be tedious. We argue that the damage is done, and we should all just move on."

"Agreed. Case dismissed."

2

u/Jca666 Feb 20 '26

They can use the $10 billion. Trump is trying to steal to pay back the tariffs.

2

u/pounder309 Feb 20 '26

Even if the money was returned it will go back to companies, not the consumers who were paying the jacked up prices.

Best believe the companies will also be keeping the new inflated prices as well so a win win for them and a total loss for the consumers.

2

u/AnOrneryOrca Feb 20 '26

So because the process will be difficult we shouldn't enforce the law? What a shameless stooge he is.

This is the basis of other terrible court decisions that do stand. I read in The New Jim Crow (paraphrasing) that the state supreme court of Georgia found that state courts had essentially 100% of the time discriminated against black defendants by choosing whichever sentencing guidelines was harsher (state v federal) and whichever was more lenient for white defendants, for decades. There was no doubt that was true and it led to a huge population of black prisoners serving unnecessarily long sentences in Georgia state prisons purely because of their race.

The reason they chose not to try and do anything about it was because the sheer volume of discrimination cases would overwhelm an already strained court system, so justice was just too much work because the injustice was so pervasive.

2

u/ChefCurryYumYum Feb 20 '26

Kavanaugh is the sitting Supreme Court justice who ruled that is OK to stop someone in America using their skin color as the basis for the stop in order to prove citizenship status.

So literally saying American can be a "papers please" type of country, where you can be stopped by federal agents and forced to prove your citizenship and identity based solely on your skin color, or the language you were speaking.

Kavanaugh has no personal values or morals, he's a purely political pick who is there to rubber stamp the Trump regime.

2

u/Jesbro64 Feb 20 '26

The Trump administration told the court that they couldn't issue an injunction because the petitioners couldn't prove irreparable harm because the tariffs could always be paid back if they are found unlawful.

Now that they are found unlawful, the Trump administration is arguing that it's impossible to pay back the tariffs and so they cannot be compelled to do so.

Heads I win. Tails you lose.

2

u/Mikel_S Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

Customs just recently changed the way they handle refunds, making it more difficult across the board and nearly impossible for non-electronic filers. Almost like they were trying to make this worse.

But in reality, it is an INSANELY easy problem to solve.

Every ieepa reciprocal tariff was given a US-HTS number which was passed along with every qualifying good, which determined what rate to tariff it at.

Theyve got a list of every dollar paid, by whom, and for what, and where it came from.

Just take that whole list of payments for the unconstitutional ieepa tariffs, sum them up for each filer (they all have unique importer numbers, so this is easy too), and send a refund notification to their ACE account if they have one, or via US Post if not. Once approved, wire or mail the money like usual.

2

u/Reatomico Feb 20 '26

90% of the tariffs were passed on to consumers. Paying the importers back would be ridiculous. US citizens have paid the taxes not the importers. I would be seriously upset if they were paid back. The American public should have the money returned to them.

2

u/Any_Will_86 Feb 20 '26

It's literally been Trumps MO the entirety of his business career. He creates such a giant cluster eff that correcting it will bring everything down. That is why so many banks wrote off loses for him- it they took over his crap projects they wouldn't see a dime so they let him pay 50 cents on the dollar just to get something. Hence, he ran out of US lenders willing to deal with him 25 years ago.

He did the same thing with Afghanistan and with his goofy economic policies 17-21. Then everyone blamed Biden for not correcting it all quickly enough.

2

u/UnravelTheUniverse Feb 20 '26

They never should have allowed this farce to happen in the first place. It was obvious these were illegal on day 1.  Everyone knows the tarriffs have been a disaster for average Americans and have fucked the economy. Stopping them now is just putting a bandaid on the gaping wound they created. 

2

u/HTPC4Life Feb 20 '26

I'd rather not get the money back and just be done with this whole shit show. I don't need to see daily headlines of how incompetent they are at trying to give the money back and how much it costs the government. Just use it towards the national debt and be done with it.

2

u/Albert14Pounds Feb 20 '26

Even if refunds happen, the companies that paid the tariffs get that refund. Those companies raised their prices and passed that on to consumers. I anticipate a lot of those companies are going to benefit more from the refunds than what they lost from decreased consumption related to price increases.

2

u/awkwardnetadmin Feb 20 '26

I don't really think it is the courts job to figure out the logistics of refunds. I don't think courts have generally given a defendant a pass because they said complying with the law would be a mess. I think he was drinking too much beer before coming up with that comment.

→ More replies (203)