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

#821

Post by QuantumNoodle » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #676

QuantumNoodle wrote: post #639

Do I understand correctly, that these companies applying for refunds, likely passed the costs onto consumers who paid a higher price for goods. Now the companies will claw back their refunds from the gov AND keep the markup they charged consumers?

I keep hearing this logic, but is not like the companies asked for it. The politicians did this. They could pass a law tomorrow forcing the companies to refund windfalls from the illegally levied taxes.

> ... but is not like the companies asked for it.

This doesn't justify them double dipping. Raising prices on consumers to cover tarrif costs and then getting refunded for tarrif costs isn't ethical no matter who caused the tariffs.

Consumers didn't ask for this either, so are we going to see year-long sales from companies?

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

#822

Post by nothrabannosir » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 7:31 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #816

nothrabannosir wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. There are cases for which Trump should have been tried, but the NY one about mislabeling funds was not one of them. It was a massive reach, and I bet you Meanwhile he pressured georgia secretary of state to "find votes", in a recorded call; he should have been tried for this but it didn't get brought to the courts. This was a…

> Half the country voted for this. Actually, not half the country. > At some point this is democracy in action. Actually, no, winning election in democracy does not mean you get to be a tyrant to whome laws dont apply. Also, seems like my point about law not applying to Trump stands entirely. None of your arguments actualy disagree with that claim.

Yes just to be clear I edited that original commnt from “there’s no law he’s breaking” to “for every such law, there’s another one which exonerates him/them”, so technically speaking I think we agree: he is breaking laws.

my impression from more closely following the actual Supreme Court (and federal) cases and reading the opinions as a total layman is that the laws and cases are rarely clear cut, nor isolated. They constantly pull in context and other laws and try and guess what congress meant. And many times the judges make very fair points. Things I thought were clear , actually aren’t. And I’m happy that they’re erring on the side of reticence when it comes to punishing the executive because that is a power that can (and will!) be used against the other side, in a constant escalation of partisanship. That was my original point.

This all is why I’ve come to the impression that a congress with a strong point of view is the most robust way out. If congress passes clear laws with unequivocal language about what should and shouldn’t happen in which specific transgressions of power, the judiciary will uphold it. They may be partisan in the details if that’s how you want to see it, but they will absolutely not ignore clear language from congress. These are still real judges.

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

#823

Post by Frieren » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 8:51 PM UTC

ByThyGrace wrote: post #750

Frieren wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does not have native VAT support If citizens do not have access to high quality tools that allow them to exercise their rights that rights are "de facto" invalidated. If corporations are allowed to implement regulations in faulty ways the economic system stops working and fraud is easier than ever. Part of the problem is governments trying to look "pro businesses" have become just "anti regulation". Organized crime…

> Organized crime is rising in Europe as it is increasingly easy to move money around in uncontrolled ways thru big platforms. Even though it's a sensible claim, and since you're implying causal relationship, can you provide a source for this? I'm not European so I wouldn't know.

> New technologies and increased digitalisation of financial transactions pose additional challenges, such as the convergence of different types of criminal activities like fraud, cybercrime and financial crime into one. Economic and financial crimes undermine legitimate financial organisations, distort competition and the overall dynamics of a free market environment, and have a significant negative impact on society at large. Criminal proceeds also fuel corruption, which in turn furthers crime.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/6520...

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

#824

Post by UltraSane » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 10:10 PM UTC

braincat31415 wrote: post #818

UltraSane wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran and Ukraine are not even remotely comparable situations.

Not to me. Both involve us in wars that have nothing to do with us, both are sucking away the money that could be spent on improving things domestically instead of spending it on MIC. Both use lame excuses for justification (WMD vs "fighting for democracy".) One is about protecting private equity access to Ukrainian agriculture, the other one is about denying China access to heavy crude. Both are likely to be losers.…

Preventing Ukraine from being taken over by Russia improves US security. Just sitting and doing nothing would be incredibly stupid and amoral.

But actively bombing Iran is so stupid the US never did it until Trump was elected.

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

#825

Post by braincat31415 » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC

braincat31415 wrote: post #818

UltraSane wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran and Ukraine are not even remotely comparable situations.

Not to me. Both involve us in wars that have nothing to do with us, both are sucking away the money that could be spent on improving things domestically instead of spending it on MIC. Both use lame excuses for justification (WMD vs "fighting for democracy".) One is about protecting private equity access to Ukrainian agriculture, the other one is about denying China access to heavy crude. Both are likely to be losers.…

> Preventing Ukraine from being taken over by Russia improves US security. Just sitting and doing nothing would be incredibly stupid and amoral.

The only thing it improves is the pockets of the US MIC. It will be taken over anyway, being in Russian backyard. Why didn't you take your broomstick and go fight over there if you are such a believer? Or would you rather leave the meat grinder for the Ukrainians to experience? What's amoral and stupid is that now I have to pay three times as much for heating because of LNG exports.

> But actively bombing Iran is so stupid the US never did it until Trump was elected.

LOL. Obama and Libya 2011 come to mind as a close contender. But I agree with you on this one.

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

#826

Post by cthalupa » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 11:46 PM UTC

bdangubic wrote: post #733

cthalupa wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. That sounds a lot like a king. Last I checked, our founders were pretty against the whole king thing. I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit.

> I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit. They said or they haven’t said it, no? If they did we’d have paper trail.

They did. Hamilton even argued that presidents should be subject to “forfeiture of life and estate” if crimes deemed it so. Federalist 77.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the constitution makes it clear that while impeachment is limited to removal, but that after they are fair game for criminal processes.

Wilson wrote 'far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them"

Anti-federalists went even farther - they believed that the Federalists' reliance on the impeachment process, for example, left far too wide of a gap to be exploited.

(They seem to have been correct.)

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

#827

Post by samus » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 12:05 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #811

samus wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true in theory, but really missing the point. In practice these checks come far too late. The court system is notoriously overworked and slow. In this case, most of these tariffs will not be returned because the government will make it an administrative nightmare to claim it back. In other matters the damage is even harder to roll back.

It’s a ton of work to put together a case and bring it to court - we’re talking months of research and writing for complex cases. It’s not realistic to assume the courts can strike down something days after it happens if it takes months to put an argument together. But I’ve been rather impressed by how fast the Supreme Court makes decisions when cases are brought quickly (likely much less complex).

I fully understand why the courts are slow, and they should indeed not rush decisions (especially since they have a huge weight in common law law systems), but because of this they are not able to restrain another powerful institution that has no problem with moving fast and breaking things.

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

#828

Post by donkeybeer » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 12:07 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #635

trymas wrote: post #256

Side topic, but this number puts into how crazy it was for trump[0] to go on tariff war against enemies and friends alike. All the propaganda and extortionist language about how all countries will pay up to USA. Astronomical tariffs in some cases, trade wars and dramas, alienate all allies and from all of this they got only $130B ? $7T of spending, $1.77T in deficit[1] and they planned to fix this hole with $100B?! M…

[flagged]

Ask Brazilians, they will write a nice book for you on tariffs.

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

#829

Post by UltraSane » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 7:51 AM UTC

braincat31415 wrote: post #825

braincat31415 wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to me. Both involve us in wars that have nothing to do with us, both are sucking away the money that could be spent on improving things domestically instead of spending it on MIC. Both use lame excuses for justification (WMD vs "fighting for democracy".) One is about protecting private equity access to Ukrainian agriculture, the other one is about denying China access to heavy crude. Both are likely to be losers.…

> Preventing Ukraine from being taken over by Russia improves US security. Just sitting and doing nothing would be incredibly stupid and amoral. The only thing it improves is the pockets of the US MIC. It will be taken over anyway, being in Russian backyard. Why didn't you take your broomstick and go fight over there if you are such a believer? Or would you rather leave the meat grinder for the Ukrainians to experien…

You are saying exactly what a Putin shill would say, that Putin's victory is certain so don't even try to fight him.

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

#830

Post by braincat31415 » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 3:37 PM UTC

UltraSane wrote: post #829

braincat31415 wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Preventing Ukraine from being taken over by Russia improves US security. Just sitting and doing nothing would be incredibly stupid and amoral. The only thing it improves is the pockets of the US MIC. It will be taken over anyway, being in Russian backyard. Why didn't you take your broomstick and go fight over there if you are such a believer? Or would you rather leave the meat grinder for the Ukrainians to experien…

You are saying exactly what a Putin shill would say, that Putin's victory is certain so don't even try to fight him.

Hehehe. Nice try. All I am saying this is not our fight. If you really think it is, don't be a coward and join in, instead of having Ukrainians die for you.

Thank you for proving what I said at the very beginning of this conversation. Say something that makes perfect sense, democrats like you would label a Putin shill. Say someting against Trump's policy, get labeled a libtard. Both get us into moronic wars.

No wonder I no longer bother going to the polls. Take care.