25 ms·
US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
- master_crab 1y agohttps://archive.is/feHjm https://archive.is/feHjm
- blindriver 1y agoThis link doesn't contain any information.
- jml7c5 1y agoYeah, looks like it archived a stub from before Bloomberg added anything substantive. Here's a fresh capture: https://archive.ph/DMT9d https://archive.ph/DMT9d
- MBCook 1y agoReuters has got you: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-blocks-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-2025-05-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-blocks-trumps-libe...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jml7c5 1y agoHere's the ruling (PDF): https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf
- jmclnx 1y ago[flagged]
- ivape 1y agoI'm a little worried about this. This president may take out this setback on innocent people. I don't think it's out of the question that he may start a war.
- nessbot 1y agoSo he gets to flaunt the law because he's vindictive? Not a system I wanna live in.
- ivape 1y agoThat's why I'm worried. To me it's obvious he was extremely upset with all those court cases against him, and now the courts and the Fed Chair are just straight ignoring him. So is Putin.
- nessbot 1y agoYeah I get personally being worried but it's a weird thing to post online because the implication shared is that it'd be better if he [was allowed to]* just abuse emergency powers. *edit
- MBCook 1y agoWhat’s the alternative? Roll over and let him do whatever he wants?
- Spooky23 1y agoYou have to force the issue. At the end of the day, congress will either stand by and allow the president to ignore the court, arrest judges, send his flying monkeys to intimidate them… or not. If the president doesn’t back down, we’ve crossed the rubicon.
- myko 1y agoWe already crossed that rubicon Jan 6th
- 1y ago
- duxup 1y agoThe GOP controls the house and senate. Congress controls tariffs. If they followed the law congress could make the thing happen. But I don't think think independent thinking is allowed in the GOP, and it might force their hand if they had to actually put it to a vote ...
- eru 1y agoWouldn't they still have to deal with filibusters?
- tokioyoyo 1y agoCodifying tariffs would also mean they probably can't change it every day to different numbers, no?
- boroboro4 1y agoPotentially they can codify broader authority for executive to regulate tariffs…
- alabastervlog 1y agoToo much of that should, but probably won't, set off every alarm and siren with the conservative justices, for stepping way over the line, after their reasoning on Chevron.
- Spooky23 1y agoThey can put a procedure in place to allow for some changes, just not under the ridiculous “state of emergency”.
- duxup 1y agoThe bigger problem would be their own party members.
- eru 1y ago
- b0sk 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tnel77 1y agoNot saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’m surprised it took this long.
- duxup 1y agoChecks and balances are good things. Hopefully we see more.
- colechristensen 1y ago[flagged]
- pwarner 1y agoCongress seems to want a king?
- duxup 1y ago[flagged]
- klipt 1y agoBetter hope this bill that house republicans have passed dies in the senate, since in effect it lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
- cardamomo 1y agoWhoa. It is scary, but not surprising, to me that GOP representatives slipped that into the bill.
- boroboro4 1y agoI think it might be struck down by Byrd rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_an...)
- jakek 1y agoSummary of the ruling with annotations (written & audio): https://guidedsearch.ai/results?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cit.uscourts.gov%2Fsites%2Fcit%2Ffiles%2F25-66.pdf https://guidedsearch.ai/results?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cit.usco...
- firesteelrain 1y agoIt’s not the end of this saga. Prior administrations, Republican and Democrat, have enacted tariffs without additional congressional approval.
- duxup 1y agoCongress granted some options to the executive branch to do so. The justification given by this administration to act independently is legally absurd.
- davorak 1y agoMy understanding is that in 2024 that some power of congress to delegate to power to the executive was limited in "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" over turning(partial I assume, I am not well versed in this) the opinion called "Chevron deference" from "Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council". So the Supreme Court at least puts limits on what/how congressional powers can be delegated.
- pwarner 1y agoThere are other avenues, but I think those last tariffs were targeted. Another scenario where executive branch appears to have power, delegated from Congress, to enact tariffs https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/usad.htm https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/usad.htm
- pwarner 1y agoAlso as someone else noted https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/other-areas/office-of-technology-evaluation-ote/section-232-investigations https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/other-areas/office-of-tech...
- lenerdenator 1y agoTrue, though none have done it this aggressively and this aimlessly. The Trumpist era can be defined by someone pushing the limits of power to see just how far they can go. It can also be defined by the importance of the bottom line. In this case the former threatens the latter, so there are forces gathering to actually push back.
- Spooky23 1y agoIt will be interesting to hear what Justice Thomas’s supine justification will be for attacking the ruling. The catalyst for the American Revolution was the imposition of taxation (tariffs) without representation. The irony that the party of performative patriotism, with a conservative court, control of the presidency is so spineless that they are afraid to stand and vote for their policy is too afraid to attach their names to the policy.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- profsummergig 1y agoThis would fit the standard of taxation with representation. Both Trump and Congress are elected, via a representative democratic process.
- Spooky23 1y agoThe Trade Court disagrees. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]
- adrianmonk 1y agoSo, since they were apparently never legal in the first place, will there be refunds for all the tariffs already paid? That could really help out small businesses that were hit with huge tariff bills. Common sense would say yes, but not sure how the law actually works. I also wonder about the effects on the budget bill currently being worked on by Congress. Were they factoring in tariff revenue that now won't exist? And if so, will they respond with more spending cuts or less tax cuts?
- xigency 1y agoYeah, that's a very good question. I kind of doubt it since we've moved beyond a world of common sense. If this ruling holds the best thing would have been to have never paid the tariffs.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoIf this ruling is upheld (will probably be fought all the way to SCOTUS), then I would imagine that US businesses who paid the tariffs indirectly (i.e., the seller tacked it onto the price), will sue the US Gov to get that money back.
- koakuma-chan 1y agoAnd what happens now?
- MBCook 1y agoTrump already appealed. It goes to the next court up. Fun continues until the Supreme Court takes it + decides or chooses not to (effectively leaving the appellate decision in force).
- thrance 1y agoAnd then? Trump doesn't follow SCOTUS rulings anymore.
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]
- 0xy 1y ago[flagged]
- ChrisLTD 1y agoThe quantity and capriciousness of these tariffs are certainly unusual.
- bawolff 1y agoYeah, but did he use the same justification as trump is? Like i think the court is just saying [article paywalled] that trump is going beyond what the law authorized, not that there is anything wrong with the law itself.
- xigency 1y agoI agree. As someone with libertarian ideals I dislike both of these parties (almost) equally.
- acdha 1y agoAs a former libertarian I have a hard time squaring that philosophically with not saving most of your dislike for the people attacking habeus corpus, the rule of law, ignoring judicial rulings, etc. There is plenty to dislike about the Democrats but this is a completely new level of assault on core libertarian principles.
- xigency 1y agoOh for sure, I've gone as far as trying to get people to change their votes to avoid what we're currently putting up with. But you can't argue that each party paves the way for the other's abuses. Consider the average age of congress and the amount of power the executive branch now holds.
- acdha 1y agoWe do need more reforms on unchecked power, but in general this boils down to a clear hierarchy of failure where the primary criticism of the Democratic Party is that they didn’t do more to stop the outright crimes committed by the Republican Party. Neither is laudable but they’re not equivalent.
- BobbyTables2 1y agoSo when do prices go back down?
- slater 1y agoBold of you to think that's ever going to happen, or that it was ever even intended to happen :(
- chneu 1y agoNo way major corps will lower prices. Just like during covid they'll find excuses. Until a regulatory body investigates them for price fixing nothing will change. So nothing will change. During covid, the soda companies kept raising prices. They claimed supply chain. Then, I think it was the SEC(probably wrong), stepped in and said "We're gonna investigate ya for price fixing" and suddenly soda prices went back down.
- SkipperCat 1y agoSadly, DOGE probably fired all the people in the SEC and other agencies that would have gone after corporate price fixing from this current debacle. Hard to believe that this administration may have made prices worse than the Biden administration. Actually, its not hard to believe, its totally Trumpian.
- firesteelrain 1y agoIt was the FTC investigating grocery retailers in general creating higher prices to protect their profits while the retailers blamed COVID. Separately, the “Federal Trade Commission sued PepsiCo on Friday, alleging that it has engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving unfair price advantages to one large retailer at the expense of other vendors and consumers.” 1. https://apnews.com/article/ftc-sues-pepsico-price-discrimination-walmart-21ec148b608f3438fdd6d919732be97d https://apnews.com/article/ftc-sues-pepsico-price-discrimina...
- Auracle 1y agoWe've already seen it happen with the Chinese tariffs being temporarily (possibly permanently, now) lowered. Competition works, as always (price fixing excepted).
- neonate 1y agohttps://archive.md/DMT9d https://archive.md/DMT9d
- Simulacra 1y agoThis won't really change anything, Trump has already shown a willingness to disregard the courts. He will appeal, and continue to disregard and impose the tariffs.
- mangoman 1y agoI'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declare such new or additional rate or rates of duty as he shall determine will offset such burden or disadvantage, not to exceed 50 per centum ad valorem or its equivalent, on any products of, or on articles imported in a vessel of, such foreign country" it does cap it at 50%, but I mean it seems like a much easier way to justify the tariff. is there something else about it that isn't as practical (other than being almost 100 years old)
- Simulacra 1y agoThat's probably coming next.
- bilbo0s 1y agoit does cap it at 50% Pretty sure you're answering your own question.
- mangoman 1y ago...sigh... i mean i guess it really is just about saying they _can_ do it instead of actually _trying to do it_....
- growlNark 1y ago[flagged]
- curt15 1y ago> (other than being almost 100 years old) Age alone shouldn't disqualify a law. The law above all other laws, aka the Constitution, is more than 200 years old.
- lovich 1y ago
- growlNark 1y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> I also hate the concept of a "trade court". Where the fuck were you for the past 400 years? You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_International_Trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Inter...
- growlNark 1y ago> You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day This is certainly no less damning. However, it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans!
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans Seriously lost on what point you're trying to make. Is it a general diatribe against specialist courts, e.g. dedicated family and traffic courts?
- growlNark 1y agoWell, sure. a trade court is a symptom of trade. You don't have a trade court without trade, just like you wouldn't have a family court without family or a traffic court without traffic. But the entire premise of the private market is competition, or else it's just a blight on humanity. So the idea of a trade court seems a little silly at best, or actively enabling the worst hypothetical behavior of capitalism at the worst. If the court were really that necessary, the fundamental tenets of the alleged benefits of capitalism seem in question, and we should probably renegotiate at all costs with those who own the means of production.
- zombiwoof 1y ago[flagged]
- growlNark 1y ago[flagged]
- tomschlick 1y agoThen change it through amendments. However you likely wont be able to because not enough people agree with you to do so. Our constitution was made to be specifically hard to change unless a vast majority agreed. That's a feature, not a bug. If a change can't be agreed upon at the national level it should stay at the state / local level. > It should, however, cause people who voted for this (hypothetically dead or disabled or otherwise incapacitated) politician to see themselves as the piles of shit they are. Case in point, it protects us from reactionary changes based on vitriol like this instead of substance.
- rswail 1y agoOr unless enough state legislatures vote for a constitutional convention, in which case, all of the constitution is up for grabs. Whether the population of those states wants the change is irrelevant if the legislature votes for it (even if they lose the next election).
- growlNark 1y ago> Then change it through amendments. Doesn't really matter when the amendments go through the same electoral structure. I.e. if the electoral structure weren't fucked, there would be recent amendments worth discussing. Or else everyone really does want to live in a capitalist shithole where people don't have any rights worth speaking of aside from ownership of property.
- curt15 1y ago>Our constitution is something to feel shame for—this obviously no longer represents us or our values in any way. Why would we look to 18th century aristocrats that share basically no values with us to see ourselves? We have real rights we care about—shelter, healthcare, education, and food. There's an Amendment process for updating the Constitution. It's been used many times, most recently in 1992.
- siliconc0w 1y agoI wonder if this means businesses can request the courts order the government to repay their unconstitutionally levied duties - especially when it meant it basically destroyed their ability to do business.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoCongressional Research Service: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Legal Overview - https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45732.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45732.pdf - April 17th, 2023 Wikipedia: Sovereign immunity in the United States - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
- Terr_ 1y agoThere are exceptions, IIRC you can sue the Internal Revenue Service to return overpayments. It's less-clear whether the same is true for Customs and Border Patrol.
- godelski 1y agoAs your first link says, this doesn't give them sweeping immunity. The intent of the policy (again, discussed in the first page but more later) is to protect the government from doing reasonable things. Sweeping immunity obviously doesn't exist, as evidenced by the court ruling this thread is about. The government gets sued all the time and frequently they have to pay damages. Remember, the US was explicitly set up to see itself as an adversary. You can read this in practically any of the federalist papers. The founders saw government as a necessary evil and even talked about how democracies often become autocracies by autocrats being freely elected. It's 250 years into that so yeah, things have changed a lot since then. But it's worth noting that a fair amount of this got embedded into the constitution. So it gets upheld as long as at least one party is adversarial to the other. Interestingly, in many ways this can be maintained even if both parties are adversaries to be people. Clearly something we don't want (cough) but that was by design. 250 years is a pretty good run
- 1y ago
- drewcoo 1y agoYou know when a programmer first moves from rote understanding of syntax and running through tutorials into that mode where they're testing the limits of what a new (to them) language can do and how it performs? This reminds me of that. It just took Trump several years longer than I expected.
- thrance 1y ago[flagged]
- solardev 1y agoDoes it really matter what a court finds, anymore? We don't exactly live in law-abiding times.
- forgotoldacc 1y agoA lot of people really seem to think this is the end of everything. But there are two options here. One is that some other irrelevant and obscure law from 200 years ago is dug up and used to justify the tariffs and another long court battle begins. The other is that the ruling is simply ignored, just like many others, and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Every single judgement has gone this way for the past 9 years. I'm always amazed when people keep expecting different. It's like being surprised about the events in a 10 season long reality TV show. It's the same script everyday.
- UncleOxidant 1y ago> and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Thing is, I think support for these tariffs is way less than 1/2 of the country. Even parts of MAGA have been expressing doubt about the tariffs (or at least the hamfisted way they've been implemented).
- forgotoldacc 1y agoApparently up to about 40% support them, depending on the poll. [1] That 40% seems absolutely unshakeable in their support. No matter what happens, that group will support it. And 40% is pretty close to half. [1] https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-against-trump-tariffs-by-about-60-36/ https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-agai...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- declan_roberts 1y ago[flagged]
- JohnMakin 1y agoThis is not how the supply chain works.
- tdhz77 1y ago[flagged]
- arunabha 1y agoI'm really surprised to see this on the front page. Usually stories like this move off the front page in minutes. It's not because of flagging though. I had asked the question on a previous article which disappeared off the front page in minutes and Dang was kind enough to provide an explanation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487014 The relevant bit from his explanation was "Mostly that's because this general topic (His You-Know-Whoness) is the most repetitive/indignant one that HN has experienced in recent months. We're trying to avoid that, not because of the specific topic, but because those qualities (repetition and indignation) are the opposite of what the site is for, and destroy what it is for." So, contrary to popular perception, it's not the flag/downvote brigade which causes these stories to disappear off the front page.
- Leo-thorne 1y agoThis feels like bringing up an old issue again. These days, a lot of trade policy just comes down to whatever the president decides, with very little public debate. When a 70-year-old law gets used as the main justification, it makes you wonder if emergency powers have simply become too convenient for anyone to walk away from. Whether this ruling will actually change anything probably depends on whether people care enough to follow up later.
- arcmechanica 1y ago90 year old law
- palmotea 1y agoAge doesn't matter. The Constitution is even older, and it's not like that makes it moot.
- synergy20 1y agoIt's interesting. Nearly all orders from the executive branch are banned by some federal judge/court now(there are about 100 of federal courts, any one will do). While I don't agree with all the orders, the power of a random federal judge who can issue a nationwide ban relatively easily seems a little too much. To the point that the president is pretty much useless.
- School-Cotton 1y agoThat is why appeals exist.
- synergy20 1y agowhich could take years to effectively kill all the orders.
- School-Cotton 1y agoThat’s why temporary restraining orders and injunctions exist.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anonymous_panic 1y agoThey're nearly all banned because they're nearly all illegal. The president is not a king. If Trump followed the law, this wouldn't be happening.
- synergy20 1y agoexcept most of the orders are blocked by the opposite party judges, I would not call it 'illegal' until it went through the supreme court, problem is that it could take years, so the opposite party judges can block pretty much every order at the whim of whatever.
- ycui1986 1y agodoes this mean we stop paying tariff tomorrow ?
- Aloisius 1y agoThe order gave them 10 days to start winding it down.
- captainkrtek 1y agoNot an expert on tariffs, but I believe they are assigned based on the date they leave port from their source (or arrive at port?). So there were some rushes for suppliers to ship things before the new tariffs kicked in, even though they would arrive at port after the new tariffs were "in effect".
- Brybry 1y agoTrade Court docket, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump (1:25-cv-00066): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/vos-selections-inc-v-trump/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/vos-selections... Appeals Court docket, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (25-1812): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70394463/vos-selections-inc-v-trump/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70394463/vos-selections...
- drivingmenuts 1y agoBetcha he just ignores the ruling and carries on as normal (or tries to, anyway).
- blobbers 1y agoWhy is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected? Didn't this exact sort of thing happen when a democrat was elected, the republicans basically stonewalled all progress? Now the dem bureaucracy is stonewalling the republicans? Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Am I being naive in thinking it wasn't always like this?
- EthanHeilman 1y ago> Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Yes, check and balances assume a conservative* theory of government in which politicians should be restrained and changes should be require overwhelming support to implement. *- not conservative in the sense of political ideology, but conservative in the sense of attempting to conserve.
- blobbers 1y agoWhite House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control." This is starting to sound like `Wool`
- EthanHeilman 1y agoDo illegal thing, court says it is illegal, blame court for enforcing laws and constitution like that isn't their job.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago> White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control." So? That's the same overheated rhetoric they trot out every time the courts rule against Trump. It's pretty tired by now. It's like they can't even come up with a new set of inflammatory adjectives; they're always reaching for the the same old ones. The White House deputy chief of staff making a post on X has exactly zero to do with whether the decision was right or wrong. In particular, the Trump camp acts like every time the courts rule on the legality of Trump's actions it's an overreach of judicial authority. They either failed Civics 101, or they want everyone else to forget what it said. This is the courts' job. > This is starting to sound like `Wool` ?
- pjmlp 1y agoGreat, now does it matter? The current administration is doing their own laws and no one seems to actually be willing to stop it, like in many authoritarian countries.
- lobsterthief 1y agoAnd the brain drain will continue…
- almog 1y agoThis could turn differently than anticipated* if 1. Negotiations with EU and China stalls because of the ruling. 2. The Trump administration appeal and win or just ignores this completely. If both things happen, it could place us back where we were but with an even more vengeful Trump. * Anticipated by the equity market which rallied to the tunes of this news in the afterhours (ETH)
- msgodel 1y ago[flagged]
- codelikeawolf 1y ago> The Trump administration argued in court filings that the plaintiffs are improperly questioning his executive orders, “inviting judicial second-guessing of the president’s judgment.” Isn't this that whole "checks and balances" thing I learned about in school?
- gdilla 1y agoNo it’s the authoritarianism you learned in school
- EasyMark 1y agoI'm sure his tariff schemes will be unwound by the end of the year, and be pushed to Congress which will scoff at it. But it will move at the speed of tree sap, as courts dismantle it a piece at a time. Government is slow, but it can work
- TrapLord_Rhodo 1y agoThey've issued a stay. So, this is a giant nothing burger until 9 June, and then it's a giant nothing burger until it gets to the supreme court, because they can issue a stay until they've ruled on it. Trump seems to be in control of the supreme court, so i imagine this will all end in a giant nothing burger.
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]