Home » us supreme court
Tag:

us supreme court

world

US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs: Refunds, Impact & Next Steps

by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief
written by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief

The US Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration last week by ruling that the so-called Liberation Day tariffs, implemented in April 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were unlawful. This ruling has major implications for U.S. Trade policy, including potential financial repercussions amounting to $175 billion or more in tariff refunds.

More than 1,400 companies, including major players like FedEx, Costco, Goodyear, and L’Oréal, have filed protective claims with the Court of International Trade (CIT) in response to this ruling. The complexity of unwinding this trade policy shift raises questions about the next steps for these companies and their financiers as they navigate the aftermath of the court’s decision.

Understanding the Refund Process

While the Supreme Court’s ruling has invalidated the tariffs, it has not clarified the refund process. The case has been referred back to the CIT, which must determine whether it has the authority to issue a nationwide injunction for refunds to all importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs or just those who filed protective actions.

As Greg Husisian, a trade attorney, notes, over 2,000 claims have already been filed, and this number is expected to rise sharply. A significant concern is whether refunds can be issued for entries that have already been liquidated, meaning the duties are considered final.

the eligibility for refunds is linked to the ‘importer of record’ status, raising concerns for distributors and other partners in the supply chain who absorbed the costs of tariffs but might be excluded from refunds unless they have contractual protections. This situation opens up complex issues regarding risk allocation among importers, suppliers, and buyers, as well as potential insurance claims for wrongful tariff costs.

Financial Implications for Companies

From a financial perspective, the ruling poses questions about its impact on corporate cash flow and credit needs. Michael Stitt, head of trade and working capital sales origination at US Bank, indicated that it is still early in the process, and he does not foresee a significant impact on how clients finance working capital or adjust their pricing strategies.

Stitt pointed out that generally, he has not observed considerable pressure on credit capacity or pricing as a result of elevated tariffs. He suggested that if the U.S. Administration is limited in its ability to set tariff policy unilaterally, pressures may ease. Importers that previously considered tariffs in their inventory costs may see changes in their borrowing bases, which could shrink if those costs are no longer present.

refunds will be issued only to U.S. Importers, not to exporters or consumers who faced higher prices due to the tariffs. Some sectors, particularly those that paid maximum duties on machinery, electrical appliances, and garments, may benefit more from potential refunds.

What Lies Ahead?

As significant as the Supreme Court ruling is, further litigation seems likely. Husisian believes that the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will continue collecting all IEEPA tariffs until they are replaced by recent tariffs, as announced by President Trump. The customs agency is expected to retain previously collected tariffs while the CIT decides the refund process.

Refunds for IEEPA tariffs will only occur following a final, unappealable ruling, which could involve additional legal proceedings, potentially extending the timeline for resolution. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has signaled a shift to other tools to sustain its tariff policy, including a proposed 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This approach may face challenges, as it is not typically used for trade deficits.

As the government focuses on safeguarding trade agreements with countries like the UK and Japan, concerns about the stability of U.S. Trade policy are growing. Experts indicate that trade partners are increasingly wary, citing a lack of legal certainty regarding how U.S. Trade policies will evolve.

John Ferguson, head of the Future of Trade initiative, emphasized that while this ruling represents a significant victory for the global trading system, it does not eliminate tariff uncertainty. Companies must still prepare for a volatile trading environment, balancing strategies for U.S. Policy fluctuations with those in more stable markets.

The next confirmed checkpoint will be how the CIT handles the refund process and the timeline for any payouts. As companies await clarity, discussions about the broader implications of these tariffs on supply chains and pricing strategies will continue.

As the situation develops, companies and stakeholders are encouraged to stay informed and engaged with ongoing developments in U.S. Trade policy.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
News

Trump Tariffs: Supreme Court Ruling & 50% Threat – GB News Update

by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief
written by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief

Washington D.C. – A swift rebuke from the Supreme Court on Friday has triggered a dramatic response from former President Donald Trump, who announced a new 10% global tariff on all countries just hours after the court struck down his previous sweeping tariffs. The ruling, a 6-3 decision, found that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the tariffs without Congressional approval.

The decision throws U.S. Trade policy into uncertainty, prompting an immediate and forceful reaction from the former president. Trump, speaking at the White House, reportedly expressed his “ashamed” feelings toward the justices who ruled against him, calling the decision “deeply disappointing,” according to the Associated Press. He has vowed to implement new tariffs under a different legal framework, specifically Section 122, and is exploring other avenues for imposing trade barriers.

The legal challenge centered on whether the president could unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) without explicit authorization from Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated the Trump administration “points to no statute” authorizing the use of IEEPA for tariffs, adding that the president asserted “the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope.” The court ultimately held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The immediate fallout saw Trump grab to social media, announcing the new 10% tariff on “all countries” via his Truth Social platform. “It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately,” he posted. This move comes despite the Supreme Court’s ruling and signals a continued commitment to protectionist trade policies.

Supreme Court Ruling and Trump’s Response

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday marks a significant loss for Trump on an issue central to his economic agenda. The case stemmed from his administration’s implementation of “reciprocal tariffs” in April 2025, imposed on several countries under the emergency powers law. The court found these tariffs to be unlawful. The Associated Press reported that Trump had been anticipating the ruling and expressed frustration over the length of time it took for the court to reach a decision.

Although the ruling invalidates the previous sweeping tariffs, it does not affect sector-specific tariffs already in place on imports of steel, aluminum, and other products. Ongoing investigations that could lead to additional targeted tariffs are also still underway.

During a campaign stop in Rome, Georgia, on Thursday, Trump openly vented about the impending decision, stating he had been waiting “forever” for the court’s ruling. Julia Manchester, a White House Reporter for The Hill, noted that Trump views tariffs as a cornerstone of his economic policy. Manchester also pointed out that while Trump theoretically could pursue further tariffs through other means, there isn’t complete unity within the Republican Party on this issue, with some Republicans potentially relieved by the court’s decision.

Republican Reaction and Potential Challenges

Manchester’s assessment highlights a potential internal challenge for Trump as he seeks to implement further trade restrictions. The lack of complete Republican support could complicate efforts to push through new tariffs, even under alternative legal authorities. The reporter suggested that some Republicans may quietly welcome the Supreme Court’s decision, viewing it as a check on presidential power.

CNN reported that Trump “raged” at the Supreme Court following the ruling, branding the verdict a “disgrace.” This strong reaction underscores the importance Trump places on tariffs as a tool for economic leverage and his frustration with the legal setback.

The new 10% global tariff announced by Trump is likely to face further legal challenges, given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. The legality of imposing such a broad tariff under Section 122, or any other legal authority, remains to be seen.

What to Watch Next

The coming weeks will be critical as the Biden administration and Congress assess the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision and Trump’s response. Further legal challenges to the new 10% tariff are anticipated, and the extent to which Trump can successfully implement his trade policies will depend on navigating these legal hurdles and securing support from within his own party. The situation remains fluid, and the future of U.S. Trade policy is uncertain.

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision and Trump’s response? Share your opinions in the comments below.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
world

Trump Tariffs & Congress: Presidential Power & Trade Law

by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief
written by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief

Washington D.C. – In a significant blow to presidential authority, the Supreme Court today ruled against the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs. The 6-3 decision, announced Friday, February 20, 2026, curtails the power of the executive branch to unilaterally enact tariffs based on national security concerns, a tactic frequently employed during the current administration. The ruling does not affect all existing tariffs, but it invalidates those implemented specifically under IEEPA.

The case centered on the question of whether IEEPA, originally intended to address national emergencies like wartime blockades, could be used to justify tariffs as a matter of economic security. The Court found that the law does not grant the president such authority. This decision marks a clear delineation of power between the executive and legislative branches regarding trade policy, reaffirming Congress’s constitutional authority over tariffs and commerce.

President Donald Trump, responding to the ruling at a news conference this afternoon, called the decision “deeply disappointing” and expressed “shame” over some of the justices’ reasoning. He immediately announced plans to impose a temporary 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974, a different legal framework than the one struck down by the Court. “Without tariffs, the rest of the world would laugh at us because they’ve used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us,” Trump stated in November, according to reports. He argued that tariffs are vital for U.S. Economic security.

The Court’s Reasoning and Dissent

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the president had asserted “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope,” but had failed to point to any statutory authorization within IEEPA to support such action. The Court’s opinion emphasizes that Congress holds the constitutional power to regulate international trade, and any delegation of that power must be explicit.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a dissenting opinion, argued that although the ruling may not significantly restrict future presidential tariff authority, it would create a “mess” for the government. Kavanaugh predicted the decision would necessitate billions of dollars in refunds to businesses that had paid tariffs imposed under IEEPA. He maintained that the text, history, and precedent supported the Trump administration’s position, adding that the tariffs “may or may not be wise policy,” but are “clearly lawful.”

Impact and Reactions

The ruling is expected to have significant implications for U.S. Trade policy. According to data from October to mid-December, tariffs imposed under IEEPA represent approximately one-third of the total revenue generated from Trump-imposed tariffs. The decision will likely trigger a wave of refund requests from businesses that paid these tariffs.

Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, characterized the ruling as a legal decision, but cautioned that it doesn’t necessarily signal a reset of U.S. Trade policy. “Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” Laing said in a statement.

The House of Representatives previously attempted to constrain the president’s tariff authority, voting on February 12, 2026, to revoke tariffs imposed on Canada under IEEPA. As reported by the Council on Foreign Relations, this vote was enabled by a quirk in the law and highlighted the ongoing struggle between Congress and the president over trade policy.

What’s Next?

The immediate future will likely involve legal challenges and administrative adjustments as the government navigates the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. The administration’s move to impose a 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974 will undoubtedly face scrutiny and potential legal challenges. Congress may seek to clarify and strengthen its authority over trade policy to prevent future executive overreach. The potential for refunds, estimated to be in the billions of dollars, will similarly be a significant point of contention and administrative burden.

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision? Share your comments below and join the conversation.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
world

Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism About Trump’s Extensive Tariff Authority

by Omar El Sayed - World Editor
written by Omar El Sayed - World Editor


Supreme Court Skepticism Threatens <a href="https://www.archyde.com/us-sanctions-cut-30-of-huaweis-revenue-in-2021/" title="US sanctions cut 30% of Huawei's revenue in 2021">Trump</a>‘s Tariff Power

Washington D.C. – A majority of Justices on the united States Supreme Court appeared unconvinced Wednesday regarding President Trump’s authority to unilaterally implement substantial tariffs, casting uncertainty over a key element of his economic agenda and prompting the most notable legal challenge to his presidential powers to date.

Core Concerns Raised by the Justices

Table of Contents

During oral arguments, three conservative Justices voiced reservations about whether an existing emergency law grants President Trump sweeping authority to establish and modify import duties, potentially impacting the global economy with trillion-dollar consequences. The court’s liberal wing also displayed skepticism, suggesting that at least two conservative Justices could join in restricting the president’s tariff powers under the law, though a complete reversal appears unlikely.

This case marks the first pivotal moment for President trump’s agenda to be directly reviewed by the nation’s highest court, a body he significantly influenced through the appointment of three Justices during his first term. While the conservative majority has previously shown reluctance to curtail his executive powers, this tariff case presents a different scenario, with a potentially more detailed and impactful ruling expected in the coming weeks or months.

Constitutional Questions and executive Authority

The central legal question revolves around the Constitution, which explicitly assigns the power to levy tariffs to Congress. The Trump administration contends that an emergency law authorizing the president to regulate imports implicitly includes the power to impose tariffs.Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern that such an interpretation could cause an unacceptable shift of congressional powers to the executive branch, revisiting historical tensions surrounding the origins of the american Revolution. He argued that any power impacting the financial well-being of citizens should be exercised locally through elected representatives.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the extent of the emergency law’s reach, asking whether it would allow for tariffs on “any product, from any contry, in any amount, for any length of time.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett similarly inquired about the rationale for applying reciprocal tariffs to such a broad range of nations,including Spain and France.

Economic Implications and Administration’s Defense

The Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, maintained that imbalanced trade agreements constitute a “global problem” and that President Trump’s tariffs are intended to ensure fairer foreign commerce, rather than to generate revenue that would infringe upon Congress’s taxation authority. However, President Trump himself contradicted this argument, stating that his tariffs are generating “hundreds of billions of dollars” and reducing the national deficit.

The cases before the court involve two sets of tariffs. The initial tariffs,enacted in February,targeted imports from canada,China,and Mexico following a declared national emergency related to drug trafficking. The second set encompassed sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries, announced in April. These actions have triggered multiple lawsuits filed by a coalition of states and businesses.

Tariff Set date imposed Countries Affected Justification
first Set February Canada, China, Mexico National Emergency (Drug Trafficking)
Second Set April Most Countries Reciprocal Tariff Policy

The Major Questions Doctrine and Potential Outcomes

The arguments hinge significantly on the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that has previously struck down aspects of former President Biden’s agenda, such as his student loan forgiveness program. Challengers argue the Trump tariffs should face the same scrutiny,given their potentially enormous economic impact,estimated at around £3 trillion over the next decade. The administration counters that the tariffs are integral to its foreign policy approach and should not be subject to judicial second-guessing.

Did You Know? The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law Trump invoked, was originally designed to address national security threats, not to implement broad trade policy changes.

Pro Tip: Staying abreast of Supreme Court decisions on trade and tariffs can provide valuable insights into evolving economic policy and potential impacts on global markets.

Understanding the history of Tariffs

Tariffs, taxes imposed on imported goods, have a long and often contentious history in the United States. From the early days of the republic, tariffs have been used to protect domestic industries, generate revenue, and influence international relations.The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, for example, is widely considered to have exacerbated the Great Depression by triggering retaliatory tariffs from other countries.

The debate over tariffs continues today,with proponents arguing thay safeguard domestic jobs and industries,while opponents contend they raise prices for consumers and harm international trade. recent trade disputes, such as the U.S.-China trade war, have highlighted the complex economic and political implications of tariff policies.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Tariff Case

  • What are tariffs? tariffs are taxes imposed on goods when they are brought into a country.
  • Why is this tariff case significant? This case could redefine the balance of power between the president and Congress regarding trade policy.
  • What is the ‘major questions doctrine’? It’s a legal principle requiring clear congressional authorization for actions with significant economic or political consequences.
  • Could this ruling affect international trade? Yes,a decision upholding the president’s power could lead to more frequent use of tariffs.
  • What happens if trump loses the case? the government might have to issue refunds for tariffs already collected, potentially impacting the federal budget.

What impact do you believe a ruling in favour of limiting presidential tariff powers would have on the global economy? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

What specific legal principle is at the heart of the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Section 232 tariffs?

Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism About Trump’s Extensive Tariff Authority

The Core of the Dispute: Section 232 Tariffs

The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 6,2025,regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This act allows the president to impose tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security. The central question before the court isn’t whether tariffs can be levied, but the extent of presidential authority to do so, and whether Congress has been effectively bypassed.

the case, Transoceanic Metal & Mineral Corp. v. United States, consolidates challenges to tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, initially enacted in 2018. Plaintiffs argue these tariffs, justified on national security grounds related to domestic steel and aluminum production, where an overreach of executive power. Key arguments center on the lack of clear congressional delegation of authority for such broad economic measures.

justices’ Concerns: A Breakdown of the Oral Arguments

During oral arguments, several justices – across the ideological spectrum – voiced significant skepticism about the scope of the Trump management’s tariff implementation.

* Delegation Doctrine: A recurring theme was the “non-delegation doctrine,” a principle limiting Congress’s ability to delegate it’s legislative power to the executive branch. several justices questioned whether Section 232 provided sufficient guidance to the President, effectively allowing the executive branch to act as both lawmaker and enforcer.

* National Security Definition: Justices probed the definition of “national security” as it applies to economic concerns. The argument centered on whether protecting domestic industries,even those with ties to defense,automatically constitutes a national security imperative justifying tariffs.

* Congressional Intent: Multiple justices expressed concern that the tariffs were used for broader economic protectionism, rather than addressing genuine threats to national security as originally intended by Congress when enacting Section 232.

* Remedy & Standing: The court also grappled with the question of remedy. Even if the tariffs were deemed unlawful, what relief should be granted to the plaintiffs? The issue of standing – whether the plaintiffs had suffered direct enough harm to bring the case – was also debated.

Ancient Context: Section 232 and Previous Applications

Section 232 has been invoked relatively infrequently before the Trump administration. Historically, its use was limited to specific, narrowly defined national security concerns.

* Cold War Era: Early applications focused on strategic materials crucial for defense during the Cold War.

* Limited Scope: Prior to 2018, Section 232 investigations typically resulted in negotiated quotas or voluntary restraint agreements, rather than sweeping tariffs.

* Obama Administration: The Obama administration investigated steel imports under Section 232 but did not ultimately impose tariffs. This highlights the shift in approach under the Trump administration.

Impact on International Trade & Global Economy

The Trump-era tariffs had a significant ripple effect on international trade and the global economy.

* Trade Wars: The tariffs sparked retaliatory measures from other countries, leading to escalating trade tensions and what many termed “trade wars.”

* Supply Chain Disruptions: The tariffs disrupted global supply chains, increasing costs for businesses and consumers.

* Steel & Aluminum Prices: While intended to boost domestic steel and aluminum production, the tariffs also led to higher prices for these materials, impacting industries that rely on them.

* WTO Disputes: The tariffs prompted challenges at the World Trade Organization (WTO), further straining international trade relations.

Potential Outcomes & implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected in the spring of 2026, could have far-reaching consequences.

* Narrow Ruling: A narrow ruling might uphold the tariffs as applied in this specific case, while clarifying the limits of Section 232 authority.

* Broad Ruling: A broader ruling could strike down the tariffs, potentially requiring Congress to provide clearer guidance on the use of Section 232.

* Congressional Action: Regardless of the Court’s decision,the case could prompt Congress to revisit Section 232 and clarify the scope of presidential authority over trade.

* Future Presidential Power: The ruling will set a precedent for future presidents considering using Section 232 to impose tariffs, impacting the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Case Studies: Real-World Effects of the Tariffs

* Automotive Industry: The tariffs on steel and aluminum significantly increased the cost of producing automobiles, leading to price increases for consumers and impacting the competitiveness of U.S.automakers.

* Construction Sector: Higher steel prices also affected the construction industry, delaying projects and increasing building costs.

* Small Businesses: Many small businesses reliant on imported steel and aluminum struggled to absorb the increased costs, leading to reduced profits or even closures.

Benefits of Understanding the Case

Understanding the legal challenges to Section 232 tariffs is crucial for:

* Businesses: To assess potential risks and opportunities related to trade policy.

* Investors: To make informed investment decisions in industries affected by tariffs.

* Policymakers: To develop effective trade strategies.

* consumers: To understand the factors influencing prices and availability of goods.

Practical Tips for Navigating

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
@2025 - All Right Reserved.

Hosted by ByoHosting - Most Recommendeed Webhhosting. For complains, abuse, advertising contact:
[email protected]

Adblock Detected

Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website.