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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by zerocrates »

defrost wrote: post #845
Animats wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/it…

The IEEPA one works where it can last as long as the "emergency," which Congress can vote to end. The "days don't count as days" game just lets the House have an easier time of not bringing it up for a vote.

This other authority is different: it's limited within the law to 150 days and then has to be extended by Congress. So the same kind of strategy of just avoiding a vote doesn't work here. They could monkey with the deadline, but can't do so any more easily than just actually extending the tariff for real. Of course just like today you can have Trump jump to some new authority on day 151 instead.

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

#852

Post by Freedom2 »

tombert wrote: post #806
furyofantares wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea how the fuck the rumor that these tariffs will be “paid by other countries” started. It's what POTUS was saying since day 1. That we've been getting ripped off and we're gonna make the other countries pay us etc etc etc. It is, as I said in the post, obviously wrong - but that's where it comes from.

I guess I mostly don't understand how anyone believed it. He ran on lowering grocery prices, and he was going to do this by making tariffs. So his plan boiled down to "I'm going to lower prices by raising prices". With Trump it can be tough to tell if it's idiocy of malice but at some point I suppose it's a distinction without much of a difference.

I've had multiple HNers message me saying that their gas bills and grocery prices have never been lower, and that since day 1 of the new administration prices have dropped. Looking at trends across all states, I wonder how they came to that conclusion at all.

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

#853

Post by defrost »

zerocrates wrote: post #851
defrost wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/it…

The IEEPA one works where it can last as long as the "emergency," which Congress can vote to end. The "days don't count as days" game just lets the House have an easier time of not bringing it up for a vote. This other authority is different: it's limited within the law to 150 days and then has to be extended by Congress. So the same kind of strategy of just avoiding a vote doesn't work here. They could monkey with t…

> Of course just like today you can have Trump jump to some new authority on day 151 instead.

Of the many articles on this matter written in the last 24 hours, a few that I read sketched out other sections of old never used law that Trump might land on after the current "new" 10% tariff expires its 150 day life.

While I'm not a fan .. credit to the Project 2025 people behind Trump that really put the effort into gaming out the overthrow of the established post war US order .. seemingly no loophole left unexplored.

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

#854

Post by Freedom2 »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #546
mastax wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling. Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that no…

[flagged]

> As usual, interesting discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X.

@grok is this true

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

#856

Post by tedd4u »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #804
beloch wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be so in some cases, but there are extra steps in others. e.g. In a different path, 1 and 2 are the same, but things then diverge. 3) To recoup some of those tariff costs, the company sells the rights to any potential future tariff refunds. They recoup a portion of what they paid immediately but hand away the right to a full refund to another party, such as Cantor Fitzgerald. The seller might use this to re…

Some additional context to your note: Howard Lutnick is Trump's Secretary of the Treasury. And also was Epstein's literal next-door neighbor.

Lutnick is Secretary of Commerce. This is a smaller role than Scott Bessent, who is the Secretary of the Treasury.

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

#857

Post by DangitBobby »

lysace wrote: post #682
excerionsforte wrote: post #196

Should have been done sooner, I take issue with the 3 who dissented and how long it took there get there. The constitution is clear on this matter. Prices are insane already, we don't need fake emergencies to drive up prices even more.

https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-tariff-ruling-updates Furious about the defeat, Trump said he will impose a global 10% tariff as an alternative while pressing his trade policies by other means. The new tariffs would come under a law that restricts them to 150 days. Don't you americans have some kind of mechanism for removing a president from office when the trust is no longer there? I remember hearing a lot abo…

Turns out, no, that mechanism doesn't actually exist.

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

#858

Post by davorak »

sdenton4 wrote: post #467
furyofantares wrote: post #152

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."

I have to assume that some of that 4% has second order negative effects on US importers and consumers.

Profit margins can not always go down by 4% and in those cases goods and services would then not be available to US importers and consumers is only one example.

My assumption is that the 96% statistic does not fully encapsulate the negative costs to consumers. I have to to wonder how much higher the burden is over 96% when all second order effects are taken into account.

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

#859

Post by whateveracct »

axus wrote: post #176
parineum wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time. They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

Except for the 3 that dissented

Kavanaugh's dissent it honestly deranged

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

#860

Post by whateveracct »

csense wrote: post #151

I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.

this isn't about tariffs

it's about if the executive can impose them

Post reply on HN