The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he unilaterally imposed sweeping tariffs across the globe, a striking loss for the White House on an issue that has been central to the president’s foreign policy and economic agenda.

  • CircaV@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Bwahahahahahahahaha what a fucking toooooooooooooool !! And yet- dementia patient doubles down on MoAr TaRRiffS and I cAN DeStRoY aNy CoUnTrY 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

  • LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    He ignored the court ruling, keeps all the tariffs in place AND he raises them 10% just because the supreme court made him angry.

    Think about how batshit crazy that is.

    Also, funny some of you think they will refund the money. That won’t happen because they will refuse to do it. Very simple for the EPSTIEN administration to just refuse legal orders. He’s immune by the same supreme court.

    • wheezy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      To some corporations I’m sure. Not to the consumers that actually paid the cost of them. A lot of corporations bought surplus before tariffs went into effect. Then they raised prices as if the Tariffs were affecting them instantly. Now some will surely get pay backs and double dip in the profits.

      This has been and always will be a tax on the consumer and the working class. It is nothing but capital consolidation methods and class warfare. Those loyal to Trump get exclusions and profit from the Tariffs. Those that do not are hurt (all small business and some larger corps that don’t play ball).

      It is a means of solidifying loyalty to the fascist state.

    • can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      184
      ·
      7 days ago

      There are already lawsuits filed for refunds of tariff payments. Of course the money will go to the companies that made the payments. All of us who actually paid them by paying more for basically every consumer good are out of luck.

      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Some of us paid it to import companies prior to delivery (DHL charged us an extra $40 bucks for a couple items my wife bought online).

        • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Yup. This is exactly what these tariffs did.

          This was the highest tax increase on the American people in decades. And MAGA idiots cheered the entire time they lost money. Fuck all of them.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Yet another outrageous wealth transfer… It’s almost like a game to them at this point - how many ways can they extort the American taxpayer before they either run out of ideas or we put their heads on spikes?

          • ExLisperA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            Or before everyone is so poor there’s nothing left to steal.

            Remember all the SciFi movies from the 80s where the ruling class lives in skyscrapers and everyone else is fighting for survival in slums ruled by gangs? With militarized police murdering people left and right? Turns out people that came up with this were 100% right.

        • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          This explains the sc decision. The billionaires bribed them to make bank with these refund investments.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Anyone else would avoid a conflict of interest. They just looke to monetize it

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Hah! It gets better than that.

        We are going to have to pay again in taxes to make up for the new shortfall.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        It this were a proper, well regulated capitalist marketplace with actual competition, the company that sold you the widget might offer you a rebate on your next order so that they could keep your business. But, when your only real option is Amazon, they know you’re not going anywhere, so they’ll keep the tariff repayment and just wait for your next order.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      So…

      … yeah…

      According to the Fed, as of early-mid Jan 2026, you’re looking at $287 billion dollars of total Trump tariff revenue.

      https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/macro_minute/2026/how_much_revenue_raised_by_tariffs_so_far

      Also, over the last year, into this one, the Treasury has been massively expanding its General Account, which is functionally the checking account of the Federal Government.

      Its around $900 billion right now.

      Normally its more like several hundred billion, 200 b, 300 b.

      Why is it so large right now?

      Well, because the Treasury (Bessent) has decided to just massively shift as much of the Gov’s debt refinancing as possible, over to… short term debt issuance, like, 1 Year T bills and even shorter duration notes.

      Like uh, just a few days ago, the Gov issued (refinanced) around $212 billion of debt.

      So yeah, we had a one day debt rollover that… rivals the entire size of the Treasury General Account basically pre-covid.

      Every 5 days (business week), the US Gov is refinancing roughly $600 billion of debt.

      … what I am trying to say is that even if the treasury were to somehow pay back around $300 billion of illegal tariff revenue…

      Well, that would take a while.

      Because the Treasury doesn’t have the margin to do that.

      … It could very well be the case that Fed would have to print money, to buy the T Bills, so the money in the TGA… could repay the … tariffs.

      That latest $212 billion rollover ?

      The Fed had to print, poof into existence, $8 billion of it. And thats without the Fed Gov trying to add another $300 billion into… some… kind of… payment plan?

      I don’t know man, I’m an econometrician by training, but… to my knowledge nothing comparable to this has ever happened before.

      This is not looking so good.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Pay who back? All the citizens this administration fleeced?

      If corporations are paid back they aren’t going to give refunds to all of their costumers they directly forwarded these costs to.

      We all got fucked. Trump fucked us, as well as his own supporters.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s not really a matter of timing. If this ruling had come out a year ago, it’s not like there were enforcers ready to go. As soon as Trump took over he made sure that nothing in the executive branch was going to stand in his way. And his toadies in the legislative branch have been rolling over for him since the inauguration.

      • Eldritch@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Certainly. But the DOJ and every other agency has been completely hollowed of anyone that could have even tried.

  • manxu@piefed.social
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    7 days ago

    Important to note that the ruling just says Trump exceeded his authority in setting the tariffs, not that the tariffs themselves were illegal/unconstitutional. That means that Congress can authorize Trump to continue doing this. The question is whether Mike Johnson and John Thune have the numbers to pass that law. They already both quashed efforts to curb Trump’s authority before.

    • zikzak025@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      7 days ago

      I’m not too worried about additional tariffs passing through congress, though. That would have been the safer approach to try from the beginning if Trump’s people thought they could make it work. They opted for this workaround loophole nonsense specifically to go around congress because they had already ruled out the possibility of congressional approval.

      I just don’t think Trump could ever manage to get enough support from congress. Certainly not with how unpopular the tariffs currently are, and certainly not right before the midterms.

      • manxu@piefed.social
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 days ago

        But wouldn’t it be delightful if he actually tried, because that’s the only thing left to do and he can’t possibly give up on the tariffs?

        That’s his one signature economic policy. Without tariffs, he’s got nothing. Even though they are unpopular, he still claims they just need more time, you’ll see how marvelous life is going to be when he hands the tariff checks to every household in America.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        He absolutely does not have the numbers to get this through congress. Across the aisle repubs and dems are mostly pro-business, pro-trade, and these tariffs don’t make an ounce of sense to any of them. Some GOP goons would vote for it just to make Trump happy, but way too many would rather protect their wealthy donors than protect the President. There’s not a lot of political future in making the Waltons unhappy.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Across the aisle repubs and dems are mostly pro-business, pro-trade

          Well, plenty of the MAGA republicans are pro-tectionist more than they are pro-trade. If he’d tried to pass new tariffs on day 1 of his administration there’s a chance that they might have had enough votes to do it. But, that was the slow way that required negotiating and compromise.

          Now that people have seen just how awful the tariffs are, I think a lot of the MAGA republicans wouldn’t pass the legislation. They could have claimed ignorance before the tariffs passed, but now it’s hard for them to argue with a straight face that they’ll be good for America.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      That’s fine, sort of. Maybe we’re all just traumatized by violating constitution, checks and balances, the rule of law, but I’d welcome the improvement if they were evil legally

  • D_C@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    7 days ago

    Another illegal {insert thing here}?

    Oh, wow, is it time to arrest and charge?
    Or, will you do nothing just like the 7456 times the fat cunt broke your laws in the last year and you did fuck all?

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I’m not sure something like this would ever have resulted in an arrest? Even in other countries?

      An impeachment and conviction and removal from office though should be in the cards, but obviously won’t be.

  • sobchak@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    7 days ago

    At his White House news conference, Trump announced alternative options, including an immediate 10% global tariff.

    Lol, the US is a clown show.

  • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    7 days ago

    I mean, as much of a fucking mess this is going to cause, and as much as they should have said this a year ago, this is still very good news as far as I am concerned. Bare minimum, all the tarriffs currently in place by Trump are canceled going forward and it’s going to be a while before anything analogous can be put back into place.

    • aramis87@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s not all the tariffs, just the ones he justified using the 1977 Emergency Act. So of course, now he’ll use another justification, and it’ll take SC®OTUS another year to rule on those.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        That’s all of them, isn’t it? For all other tariffs he would have had to use the legislative branch, which he didn’t.

    • Weydemeyer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s a good thing first and foremost because tariffs have been Trump’s #1 tool to bully other nations into bending to his will.

    • ceenote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      If this was the fastest they could rule an executive action unconstitutional, it’s proof they need to adjust the process so they can do it faster.

      Not that I think this Supreme Court is acting in good faith.

    • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Why? Lutnick’s kid had a financial benefit in the tariffs getting overturned. The Epstein class helps each other

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 days ago

    Whoa.

    Well, I bet my pants that Justice Clarence Thomas is a dissenting opinion. Does it say in the article?

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      There’s only one way to find out: ask people what’s in the article.

      Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined with Roberts and the three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

          • TheMadCodger@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            7 days ago

            “Supreme Court justices should be [terrible thing, deadly, obviously bad outcome for them]”

            Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

            • thesohoriots@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              Like, who knows, in a motor coach kissing a concrete pillar on the way back from Martha’s Vineyard when OnStar goes out during a Cloudflare outage?

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        It’s always the ones you most suspect. You could probably be closely aligned with the constitution without knowing a single thing about the law by just always taking the opposite position from whatever Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh take.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          I can’t remember what it was about, but I think Kavanaugh was actually on the correct side of a non-unanimous ruling maybe once.

          Literally zero times for the other two, of course.

          • ameancow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 days ago

            A few of them made an effort to keep up appearances during early rulings, but then they realized that democracy was falling so they went whole-hog with empowering fascism, and now we’re approaching what looks like a brutal mid-term sweep so the judges are backing off again from overt capitulation… we sure wouldn’t want the new house and senate to introduce bills to reform Supreme Court, right?

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          I must admit I’ve been surprised by how independent of Trump Amy Coney Barrett has wound up being. She’s ruled against him a few times now.

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            7 days ago

            When she looks relatively sane and moderate it just demonstrates how crazy and extreme the fascists in charge are.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 days ago

              Oh, certainly. I would never say she was a good pick for the Supreme Court. She’s a monster who has turned on her creator, as so many of them ultimately do.

      • BillyClark@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 days ago

        I still think Barrett, a person who had almost no courtroom experience before being appointed, was a shitty appointment. But she’s turned out slightly less shitty than I anticipated.

  • CatZoomies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ooh boy, refunds! Yay!

    We should make sure to refund all the corporations and businesses - by court order! If we do that, surely it will trickle down this time.

  • Gates9@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 days ago

    “They have made their ruling, now let us see them enforce it.”

    Now several companies will sue my government for damages.

    yaaaaay