Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#161

Post by rayiner » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

petcat wrote: post #53

satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

Is it insider trading to bet on a Supreme Court verdict? It's not like it was a slam dunk. The decision was 6-3.

And the en banc appellate court decision was split 7-4, with two republican and two democratic appointees voting to uphold the tariffs.

This was a very complex decision that ideologically divided the courts.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#162

Post by gruez » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #104

gruez wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not smart, it's extortion by someone connected to the state and self dealing. Where's the extortion? The "it's a nice shop you got there..." racket only works if you can strongly influence whether the damages occur (ie. you tell your goons to attack the shop, or not). So far as I can tell however, that's not the case, because Trump wanted the tariffs to stay, and was sad that they got revoked. Going back to the…

You think businesses as a rule can all survive a 15 to 100% surcharge on their products without running into liquidity issues?

The stocks of major retailers haven't cratered, so maybe? You're going to have to present some figures rather than just asking rhetorical questions.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#163

Post by indoordin0saur » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

petcat wrote: post #120

indoordin0saur wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because he's the son of the commerce secretary, so (supposedly) has access to the internal deliberations within the government.

You're saying that he had access to all of the Supreme Court Justices' chambers?

You don't need to have access to everything for it to be insider trading, just more than the general public. Lutnick would know what case they are making to the court, perhaps the confidence of the attorneys in winning as well as information on how the case was going.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#164

Post by hypeatei » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #90

AdamN wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically I was mildly in favor of tariffs from the left pov. Reduced consumption and getting more taxes to help pay down the debt. Consumption was likely mildly reduced (and still is with the 15% tax) but now we have more inflation coming our way when those billions start flowing and our debt just keeps going up.

Such a regressive tax to get behind. Now if tariffs had only been applied to, I don't know, yachts, private jets…

Rich people consume a lot more, so a consumption tax would be ideal if you eased other tax categories like income tax and/or capital gains. It's easy to administer and would boost investment across the economy IMO.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#165

Post by bickfordb » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #96

Absolutely absurd that we’re at this point. The courts / SCOTUS let the government roll out a massive and obviously illegal tax on citizens for a long time. They should have stepped in earlier. Now we the people probably don’t get our money back….

The latest temporary tariffs are also likely illegal.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#166

Post by rayiner » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #154

seydor wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it not a conflict of interest if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?

No, it's not a conflict of interest. It's perhaps dumb, or morally bad, or several other things.

[flagged]

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#167

Post by kowalej » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

throwaway667555 wrote: post #92

I'm gonna have a stroke. The Congressional Budget Office found that consumers paid 70-80% of the tariffs, totaling more than $1000 per household. Where is my refund?

Not only that, the companies used the tariff excuse to raise prices which will not come back down even if tariffs are fully off the table. Just like the price inflation during COVID.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#168

Post by cj » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #154

seydor wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it not a conflict of interest if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?

No, it's not a conflict of interest. It's perhaps dumb, or morally bad, or several other things.

> dumb, or morally bad

This is easy to say in hindsight. There was a non-zero chance the decision could have went the other way. Also, companies aren't stupid. They don't buy insurance against things that are impossible.

And the supreme court doesn't hear cases that are 100% obviously illegal.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#169

Post by philipov » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:11 PM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #122

satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts. Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this i…

This is wrong. It's not insider trading. Lutnick didn't have inside information. His son just had a brain. Anyone who read the case knew which way the court was going, it was the least surprising decision ever. Perhaps the only surprising thing is that the court ever heard it.

In the business, even the appearance of impropriety is damaging. People who work in finance aren't allowed to trade the same stocks as their company is trading, whether they have any inside info or not. The assumption is that simply by being close to a source of information, you are compromised. The same restrictions should apply to those close to government. By being family, he is compromised by default.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#170

Post by 9dev » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 3:11 PM UTC

downrightmike wrote: post #156

benrutter wrote: post #119

Lots of comments along the lines that tarrifs were mostly passed down indirectly to consumers, who aren't entitled to refunds. I definitely agree on principle, it sounds pretty tricky to see how proving "I paid $x more for groceries because of tarrifs" would work in practice. Does anyone know of policy suggestions for how that could work?

Most everything was probably bought with credit/debit cards. The individual records exist. Just using your Amazon etc order history should be dead simple

you would need to prove what part of the amounts you paid were due to tariffs, and which were ordinary price changes. All vendors would need to publish that information, and be honest about it. Don't see it coming.