Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by ceejayoz »

grosswait wrote: post #291
singpolyma3 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a refund even likely? Seems more likely the administration orders everyone to ignore the court.

Why does that seem more likely? They haven't done that yet.

Sure they have.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-cou...

> President Donald Trump and his appointees have been accused of flouting courts in a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling, a Washington Post analysis has found, suggesting widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/18/us/politics/justice-depar...

> Judge Provinzino, who spent years as a federal prosecutor, had ordered the government to release Mr. Soto Jimenez “from custody in Minnesota” by Feb. 13. An order she issued on Tuesday indicates that the government failed not only to return his documents, but also to release him in Minnesota as she had initially specified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G...

> On April 10 [2025], the Supreme Court released an unsigned order with no public dissents. In reciting the facts of the case the court stated: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal." It ruled that the District Court "properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."

> During the [April 14 2025] meeting, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said that it was up to El Salvador, not the American government, whether Abrego Garcia would be released.

(That was, of course, a blatant lie.)

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

#322

Post by tracker1 »

neonmagenta wrote: post #213

So this means all prices are finally coming down soon, right? RIGHT?

No... because most conventional pricing increases exceeded the economic demands... at least in terms of groceries, which is one of the bigger areas of growth along with insurance rates (looking at auto insurance, required by govt in most states).

The food industries were seeing record profits at the same time of massive inflation, they were maximizing prices to see how much they could grow their wealth, while trying to minimize costs, decreasing quality and just absolutely abhorrent behavior all around.

I'm all for capitalism, but I strongly feel that the limitations granted to corporations by govt should come as part of a social contract that has largely been ignored completely. We should curtail a lot of the limitations granted and actually hold executives responsible for their decisions. We should also establish that "shareholder value" is not the only focus that companies should have. A corporation is not a person, that a corporation exists is fine, that they've been shielded from responsibility altogether in that limited liability now means you can literally destroy towns and executives and boards face no consequences is deplorable.

Governments should be limited, by extension the shields govt grants to corporations should similarly be limited. When the US constitution was written most corporations were formed around civil projects, then disbanded. Most companies were sole proprietorships or small partnerships. I think we need to get closer back to these types of arrangements.

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

#323

Post by boothby »

expedition32 wrote: post #108
fullshark wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because businesses / wall street doesn't like something doesn't mean it's necessarily good for every day Americans. The tariff vision of on-shoring manufacturing and reliving the glory days of the post WW2 era was rooted in fantasy. The US simply cannot compete given its labor costs and actual manufacturing know-how. Perhaps this is an overdue wakeup call, and a freak out is in order regarding this reality but u…

I was watching the Olympics. They have these really cool drones that follow the skiers down the slope at 80 kph. Chinese drones... If only you knew how bad things really are.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/18/china-dancing-...

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

#324

Post by marojejian »

Surprised that in all the comments so far, no one has noted that Trump has many fallback options, which he said he'd use to re-create the tariffs, when this happens:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/trump-has-many-options-supre...

https://www.myplainview.com/news/politics/article/trump-has-...

A step in the right direction, but there's a lot of progress yet to be made if we want to restrain the executive.

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

#325

Post by xnx »

jleyank wrote: post #70
xnx wrote: 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)

Seller wasn’t involved in the tariffs. Rather the importer paid them, etc.

Who pays the importer?

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

#326

Post by sophacles »

edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

Yeah, he's gotta finance the payments to whoever the kiddie peddler du jour is somehow. Especially now that he can't just walk next door or steer his yacht towards a conveniently located island.

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

#327

Post by layer8 »

furyofantares wrote: post #152
xnx wrote: 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)

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…

For goods for which no domestic equivalent alternatives exist, why would the foreign suppliers lower their prices to compensate for the tariffs (which are paid by the importers to the government)? More generally, the cost of the tariffs will be split between foreign suppliers and local importers/consumers according to the competitiveness and availability of domestic suppliers, and according to market elasticity for the respective goods.

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

#329

Post by rurp »

f33d5173 wrote: post #226
edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

[flagged]

The justices and all of their clerks don't live in a bubble. They regularly hang out and discuss god knows what with other political operatives. Thomas is particularly noteworthy for essentially taking bribes from a conservative billionaire. The idea that zero information on potential rulings would leak out to certain people is highly implausible.

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

#330

Post by tracker1 »

apexalpha wrote: post #241

Since tariffs apparently brought in about $200 billion I guess you can add another 0.66% to the 2025 deficit.

Hence my (somewhat downvoted) comment in that I think the refunds should probably just be issued aa Treasury Bonds with varying maturity dates. Cashing out all t once can only lead to more chaos/disruption to the broader economy.
Post reply on HN