Live data from Hacker News

Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

bbc.com

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for all the other blatantly unconstitutional rulings in his favor. Presidential immunity one will go down in history as a black stain on America and the courts. and still this current ruling was a 6-3 vote.

Earnestly, I think you need to actually read that opinion. They said some things the president does, he is immune for. And they pushed it back down to the lower courts to define the categories of official acts they laid out.

there is no just world in which that man is not in prison for jan 6th and his corrupt handling of classified documents

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#842
post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving act of vengeance.

[flagged]

Free trade is leftist now?

I thought a minute ago "communist China" was the protectionist one and "free capitalist America" was the one in favor of free trade.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#843
post #842
post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Free trade is leftist now? I thought a minute ago "communist China" was the protectionist one and "free capitalist America" was the one in favor of free trade.

Anything other than fawning allegiance to whatever Donald Trump said most recently is "leftist" now.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#844
post #593
post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. Watching from across the Atlantic, I was always fascinated by Scalia's opinions (especially his dissents). I usually vehemently disagreed with him on principle (and I do believe his opinions were principled), but I often found myself conceding to his points, from a "what is and what should be…

Scalia wrote some really interesting opinions for sure. Feel like the arguments are only going to get worse :(

Because in practice the US Supreme Court is a partisan body, the United States is deprived of the potential for excellent jurists you'd expect with a population of hundreds of millions and some of the world's best law schools. Only a subset of your best will exhibit the desired partisan skew.

Despite the larger population and improved access, my guess is that the quality of Supreme Court Justices today is probably worse than in 1927 when it decided Buck v Bell (which says it's fine for states to have a policy where they sterilize "unfit" citizens, straight up Eugenics)

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#845

Useful site for daily tariff updates: Trade Compliance Resource Hub.[1] They've marked which tariffs are now invalid and which are still valid. [1] https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2026/02/20/trump-...

This law firm seems to be on top of changes. The site just updated with Trump's latest proclamation. Section 122: Implemented (effective Feb. 24, 2026) [1] That's Trump's new 10% tariff applied to most countries. There are some exceptions. Most of the extreme per-country tariffs are gone. For now, anyway. Trump may add Section 201 tariffs later, but those are per product category. What Trump can do in this mode doesn…

> because the law being invoked here has a time limit unless Congress extends it.

Like many similar US laws it probably has a time limit expressed in lapsed Congressional days.

Heavy emphasis on "Congressional days".

Catch me up here, has the Congressional "clock" (count of lapsed days) been restarted since the current admin shut it down as almost the first order of business for 2025?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343

  Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.
Is it still "legally" the first week of the 119th United States Congress 11 months later ?

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#846
post #50
post #32

Let the fun of returning hundreds of billions of the illegal tariff revenue back to importers through litigation begin!

Will I get back the $17 DHL charged to collect the $1 tariff on the cat toys I bought from China? Actual event may not have occurred, but DHL flat fee is real.

> $17 DHL charged

You can't do that yourself? In my EU country if I get a package with tax and customs fee I can pay myself and not pay DHL.

Is it like the gas pump thing? Where you can't do it yourself.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#847

"The ruling applies to his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, but not individual tariffs he's imposed on specific countries or products " -- So what's gonna happen next? For countries that negotiated special treatment, they'll be stuck with a (now worse) deal? For other countries, they'll return to the previous deal (non-tariff)?

So I am far from an expert, but I saw that Capital Economics (a Macroeconomic analysis firm) put out a note saying that Trump still had power under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. But there are three catches for that. First, it only lasts for 150 days unless Congress votes to approve them. Second, that it has to apply to all countries equally: meaning that it can't be used to give some countries a break if they…

> First, it only lasts for 150 days unless Congress votes to approve them

what's the cooldown of this ability?

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#848
post #842
post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Free trade is leftist now? I thought a minute ago "communist China" was the protectionist one and "free capitalist America" was the one in favor of free trade.

I remember the anti-WTO protests and the peripheral movements that sprung out of that like No Logo, and the sneering directed at the anti-globalism protesters from people like Paul Krugman, who swore that the Great Depression was caused by Smoot Hawley and insisted there would be massive gains from trade.

Later, he fessed up and said that was another Noble Lie. There has been a lot of lying in the history of the economics profession, unfortunately, all for the greater good, I'm sure.

When these tariffs hit, I also expected broad price increases as well as a recession, when this didn't happen, I began to reassess some things.

In retrospect, I think that the massive expansion of investor rights in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the Clinton era agreements, was not really about trade at all, but about power -- e.g. getting the rest of the world to adopt legislation and reforms that would enable foreign investment/outsourcing.

I don't think the American consumer benefitted a whole lot, nor the American worker, from this movement.

I also don't think the rest of the world benefitted, apart from East Asia, but the East Asian countries famously industrialized not by pursuing unfettered trade, but by pursuing an export-led growth model with limit controls on capital inflows. E.g. they restricted trade by restricting foreign investment, the exact opposite of the WTO consensus.

Part of the reason I don't think trade was all that important, and what is important to the western consensus is investor rights and subordination of national policies is that the US has no problem levying sanctions on a large part of the world, and when these sanctions are levied, you hear barely a peep coming from the press or from economists about these sanctions.

Likewise, the EU just imposed massive sanctions on Russia, generally with the broad support of their think tanks and economic experts.

So I think trade in general is just a lot less important than we have been told. The real prize were the investor rights agreements and agreeing with western geopolitical goals.

I mentioned this to a friend who was bemoaning the terrible human rights situation in Iran, and I pointed out the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, and said the moment KSA directly challenges western power in the same way Iran has, you will start hearing all sorts of complaints about human rights in Saudi Arabia.

It's not about human rights either. Just like it's not about trade.

I think these types of situations are a real test of character for the experts. It should be an eye opening moment for a lot of people.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we repeatedly say that tarrifs are passed off in full to the consumer in the form of higher prices? Isn't that as obviously wrong as the argument for them, that they're paid entirely by the other countries? Is there a reason to believe, or evidence, that it's not a mixture of the two? edit: I want to highlight esseph's reply has a link to evidence that last year's tarrifs were passed off 90% to consumers, whic…

Here's evidence : https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-g... "Importers and consumers in the US bear 96 percent of the tariff burden."

Importer != Consumer. I think that's very obvious to anyone paying attention to this whole thing. In fact, it's a small minority of imports that are direct to consumer.

It absolutely is a mix of the importer (e.d. manufacturer, producer, wholesaler, retailer, etc.) absorbing some in their margin and the consumer picking up the bill via price increases for the rest.

It's quite obviously not 96% being paid by the consumer across the board just from looking at the CPI numbers.

All this study states is the obvious: foreign producers didn't lower their cost by much in response to tariff burden. They largely charged the same rate to a buyer in the US vs. a buyer in Germany.

This isn't to defend the tariff situation - just that this study gets trotted out a whole lot in an extremely disingenuous manner. Other data that exists is better that measures direct consumer impact.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#850
post #57

Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)

What I think is interesting is if there is going to be a legal distinction between a seller raising their prices 10% for the item itself vs. a seller charging a separate line item for tariffs/customs/duties.

I can see a situation where the courts find that a general price increase is simply they - an offer to sell at a price the buyer accepted regardless of the seller's motivation to increase pricing. However a line item that very clearly states that a charge is for duties paid might be treated differently?

Very curious to see what the legal minds have to say in this scenario. In a way it may punish companies for doing what many to most consumers feel was the "right" thing to do - add a surcharge that can easily be removed if the situation changed in the future vs. using a general increase as a new price anchor.

Post reply on HN