SCOTUS blocks Trump tariffs under IEEPA
-
Yeah. None of Trump's indignation centers on a contention that his emergency tariffs are constitutional. He's just upset because he thinks they are a good idea, and therefore the justices should be dependable rubber stampers.
Education is extremely important.
-
But it should be noted that Kavanaugh is considered more to the center than Gorsuch. The distillation of this down to rubber stamping tribalists, rather than genuine differences of perspective on the constitution, is probably overstated. At least in the case of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. It's difficult to view Thomas and Alito as anything but a rubber stamper for the right, as it would be difficult to view the three left ladies as anything but rubber stampers for the left. Though if you look, you can still find exceptions to the predictions that those categories would imply.
-
Yeah. None of Trump's indignation centers on a contention that his emergency tariffs are constitutional. He's just upset because he thinks they are a good idea, and therefore the justices should be dependable rubber stampers.
@Horace said in SCOTUS blocks Trump tariffs under IEEPA:
Yeah. None of Trump's indignation centers on a contention that his emergency tariffs are constitutional. He's just upset because he thinks they are a good idea, and therefore the justices should be dependable rubber stampers.
And he’s completely fvcked the message up. While I’m not a fan of the tariffs, I was surprised to learn the amount of gaming that happens elsewhere to disadvantage US trade. That message has been lost again.
-
Yeah. None of Trump's indignation centers on a contention that his emergency tariffs are constitutional. He's just upset because he thinks they are a good idea, and therefore the justices should be dependable rubber stampers.
@Horace said in SCOTUS blocks Trump tariffs under IEEPA:
Yeah. None of Trump's indignation centers on a contention that his emergency tariffs are constitutional. He's just upset because he thinks they are a good idea, and therefore the justices should be dependable rubber stampers.
That is certainly a well-supported conclusion. I think his belligerence is wearing thin, with little attention being paid to it. The EU's reaction was one of "oh, he's acting out again, we'll just have to ride it out until cooler heads prevail". That said, even as a lame duck, he's still quite consequential. I cannot remember a president that took so many issues head on.
-
Given that I support most of his efforts, if not the way they were gone about, it raises an interesting question. Is the US effectively governable under the current restrictions? Can we function with the painfully slow deliberative process in a world that moves ever faster?
"You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell
-
https://financialpost.com/news/economy/tariff-turmoil-eu-halt-us-trade-deal
The European Union froze ratification of its U.S. trade deal until President Donald Trump solidifies his upended tariff plans, injecting economic turbulence into an already strained relationship.
EU lawmakers on Monday suspended legislative work on approving the deal. The move came days after the United States Supreme Court struck down Trump’s use of an emergency-powers law to impose his so-called reciprocal tariffs around the world.
-
Given that I support most of his efforts, if not the way they were gone about, it raises an interesting question. Is the US effectively governable under the current restrictions? Can we function with the painfully slow deliberative process in a world that moves ever faster?
@Mik said in SCOTUS blocks Trump tariffs under IEEPA:
Is the US effectively governable under the current restrictions? Can we function with the painfully slow deliberative process in a world that moves ever faster?
Is the world really moving faster, though?
With regards to scientific progress and technological innovations, probably.
With regards to changing geopolitical risks caused by foreign powers, no worse than before.
With regards to international trade? The “moving faster” seems self-inflicted. -
A federal trade-court judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to start refunding the more than $130 billion it collected in the global tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court last month.
Following a hearing involving a filtration company’s fight for a refund, Judge Richard Eaton at the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade issued a written order directing the administration to begin the process of refunding importers. He set a hearing for Friday at which he asked for updates.
More than 2,000 lawsuits have been filed by companies—including big names such as Costco Wholesale, FedEx and Pandora Jewelry—seeking to recoup their money.
The judge’s order requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue refunds by recalculating the initial duties importers paid, excluding the tariffs voided by the high court. Eaton also said the court’s chief judge indicated he will be in charge of settling the refund litigation.
-
-
Odd, Trump in December said "we have taken in literally trillions of dollars in tariffs" in response to this being one of the biggest tax refund seasons of all time.
So was he lying or should another judge order the refund of these trillions of dollars?
-
So back in April when he first used IEEPA for tariffs the lawsuits hit right away. Plaintiffs argued for an injunction stopping the tariffs until the courts could decide on the legality.
The Trump administration’s counter argument (which prevailed) was an injunction isn’t necessary because the tariffs cause no irreparable damage to the plaintiffs ’since they could always just refund them if they’re found to be illegal’.
Fast forward 10 months and now the administration argues that refunds are so complicated as to be impossible.
-
It's unfortunately impossible to take your claim seriously that the counter argument was based solely or primarily on the notion that tariffs could be refunded if found to be illegal. Do you happen to have a reliable cite? I don't deny that it's something some litigator said at some point.
Edit: seems substantially accurate, if slightly overstated.
Your summary captures part of what happened, but it’s a bit over-simplified and slightly misleading in places. Here’s the verified breakdown.
1. Early litigation: “no irreparable harm because refunds are possible”
When companies first challenged the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in 2025, they sought injunctions to stop them while the case proceeded.
A key legal issue for an injunction is “irreparable harm.”
The government argued essentially:
- Financial harm from paying tariffs is not irreparable because money can be repaid later.
- Courts generally treat monetary losses as compensable with damages.
This argument was indeed used to oppose injunctions. Courts often accept that reasoning because money damages normally defeat the “irreparable harm” requirement. (simpleforwarding.com)
So that portion of the claim you quoted is substantially accurate.
2. What changed: the Supreme Court struck the tariffs down
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Feb 20, 2026), the Supreme Court ruled that the president did not have authority under IEEPA to impose those tariffs. (Wikipedia)
That meant roughly $130B–$175B collected from importers could potentially need to be refunded. (AP News)
3. Current dispute: refunds and logistics
Now the fight has shifted to how refunds should be handled.
Government lawyers have argued that:
- Processing refunds would require reviewing tens of millions of import entries manually.
- The scale is unprecedented and could take a long time. (Reuters)
A judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade has pushed back on that argument and ordered the government to start processing refunds. (Reuters)
4. Is the contradiction real?
There is a rhetorical tension, but it’s not quite the absolute contradiction described.
Earlier argument:
- Financial harm isn’t irreparable because refunds could theoretically compensate it.
Current argument:
- Actually implementing those refunds is administratively complex and will take time.
Those statements aren’t logically incompatible (refunds can be theoretically possible yet complicated in practice), but critics say the government is now downplaying the feasibility of the very remedy it relied on earlier.
Some legal commentators have pointed out that the promise of refunds was central to defeating early injunction requests. (Reason.com)
Bottom line:- The early claim about the government arguing refunds would solve the harm is basically correct.
- The current claim that refunds are administratively difficult is also accurate.
- But saying they’re “impossible” is not quite right—the government is arguing they’re complicated and time-consuming, not that they literally cannot be done.
If you want, I can also explain why courts almost always accept the “money damages aren’t irreparable harm” argument, because it’s a pretty central doctrine in injunction law.
-
I didn’t mean to imply that ‘don’t worry it can be refunded’ was the entirety of their argument. But it was important. Showing irreparable harm is required to get a preliminary injunction. The supposed ability to refund the cost of the tarrifs was key to saying the damage was reparable.
(For large companies at least. Of course some smaller companies could claim they’d go out of business due to tariffs which would be irreparable despite the possibility of refunds but those companies probably didn’t have the money to sue anyway and probably weren’t plaintiffs in front of the court).
