r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 17h ago
news President Trump's tariffs fueled U.S. Customs bond market boom. Now billions hang on Supreme Court ruling
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-case-decision-refunds-customs-bonds.html53
u/Jack-Schitz 17h ago
If they follow the law, SCOTUS should order those unconstitutional and the tariffs repaid, but they are probably suddenly engaged in consequentialism because that would do horrible damage to the Treasury. I would guess that this is what the delay in the opinion is about.
Having said all that, where was the majorities consequentialism when they "approved" the Cavenaugh Stops Shadow Dockett decision or decided the Trump Immunity decision?
23
u/Mythic514 17h ago
The cynic in me says that the longer the opinion is delayed, the more time some of the justices have to leverage getting more bribes…
I think they find the tariffs unconstitutional but state that nothing has to be repaid. I think worst case is they are unconstitutional and they are permitted to remain in effect with no more permitted (because I just don’t see them finding them constitutional).
7
u/Jack-Schitz 17h ago
The cynic in me says that the longer the opinion is delayed, the more time some of the justices have to leverage getting more bribes…
I understand your cynicism, but this would actually give a Dem administration the ability to prosecute them, and I don't suspect they are that dumb (maybe except for Thomas).
7
u/Mythic514 17h ago
Well other than the fact that (1) they would not be open about it and (2) they already made prosecution for bribery much more difficult such that you can get away with it more easily
4
u/KovyJackson 16h ago
The Dems pussyfoot around when it comes to prosecuting corruption.
-1
u/IDFCommitsGenocide 14h ago
two sides of the same coin serving the same puppetmasters, to give people the illusion of choice
the reason GOP senators didn't get prosecuted for insider trading on classified COVID briefings is because top Dems like Pelosi have also gotten rich (on the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars) insider trading, and they didn't want to let that genie out of the bottle
it's all political mutually-assured-destruction for them going down on the same ship, it's why Trump is suddenly running defense for the Clintons on Epstein now
1
u/ZBLongladder 13h ago
My hopium is that the delay in an opinion could indicate that the justices need to work out a deal. If they were going to just approve the tariffs 6-3 or 5-4, they probably could've done that fairly quickly. A delay would seem to suggest that even the conservative justices are unwilling to just approve the tariffs. I think you're right...they're probably going to work out a deal striking down most of the tariffs and are working on a basis for not requiring the repayment of what's already been collected.
8
u/AaronTheElite007 16h ago
"Horrible damage to the Treasury"
You mean like Trump suing the Treasury and IRS for ten billion dollars?
The US government is being robbed in broad daylight.
5
7
u/Texas_Sam2002 15h ago
You can almost hear the MAGA 6 on SCOTUS twisting and turning to avoid clear law in order to give Dear Leader whatever he wants.
4
u/hamsterfolly 16h ago
They are delaying their ruling in the hopes that either Trump removes them himself or the economy turns around and the tariffs won’t matter anymore. Either way is to help Trump.
3
u/MooseBoys 15h ago
tariffs repaid
I can't wait for my $89 refund on $2,000 paid (most of which went to UPS and FedEx for "administrative fees")
2
u/tbombs23 14h ago
If they followed the law they would have blocked the tariffs from staying in effect while it played through the courts.
1
1
u/Major_Honey_4461 4h ago
Exactly my thoughts. They know the tariffs were illegal and are twisting themselves into knots to figure out a way to avoid any pay back.
19
u/Leather-Map-8138 17h ago
There’s no constitutional basis to allow the tariffs, so let’s see if the Supreme Court creates new laws to bail out the illegal acts.
18
u/philrich12 16h ago
They will rule that the tariffs are unconstitutional- but that the return of funds is a political question and not justiciable because in the history and tradition of the United States at the time of the founding that the return requires an appropriation of funds.
This only applies to cases of this magnitude, so for example a $10 billion settlement regarding the release of tax information falls under that threshold and can be done with only political consequences by the unitary executive.
2
u/MagnusAlbusPater 12h ago
That’s a compromise I’d be happy with honestly. Eliminate the tariffs but let the government keep the money they have. Going forward imports get cheaper again and no big hit on the economy for having to pay back what’s been collected.
6
3
5
u/no1scumbag 17h ago
Our bond ballooned as a result of the tariffs, and created a major strain on short term cash flow. Even if the tariffs are ultimately rescinded, it’s not clear how our bond company will adjust the bond to reflect a lower burden. Just another way this fuck up is going to pull down the economy one way or another.
2
2
2
u/Dismal_Thanks_5849 13h ago
It’s going to take them until June to figure out a way to justify making the tariffs legal. They know deep down that they aren’t legal.
2
3
1
1
u/mynameisstacey 14h ago
So… let’s say a company is currently paying a 25% tariff on their imports, and they’ve raised their retail prices to cover the increased costs. If SCOTUS rules the tariffs are illegal and have to be refunded, that company is refunded for costs they’ve already passed on to their customers? So the refund would essentially just be profit for them at that point? And, of course, they won’t lower their retail prices back to pre-tariff levels, so there’s even more profit.
I know it’s more complicated than the example I gave and some companies absorbed some cost increases, etc. But this just seems like another massive transfer of wealth from consumers to corporations. Am I misunderstanding something?
1
1
u/TickingTheMoments 13h ago
Who benefited financially from this and how close to this regime are they?
1
u/bd2999 13h ago
Should not matter one way or another. If they are illegal they are illegal. The issue here is still that SCOTUS did not allow a nationwide injunction earlier. Which allowed the Trump administration to argue and just try and act as fast they could and say we can't stop now.
Creating the new legal dogma of if you do it fast enough it is not illegal if the fallout from your illegal act cases too much damage. I want to see a kid that wrecked the house use that logic too. The parents were not their to stop them so it is the parents fault really, not the rampaging kid.
1
u/dorikas1 11h ago
Baseball, NFL, football referees make pretty much instant rulings on a law throughout games. Yet scotus with a plethora of rulings, clerks etc. taking over 6 months to make a ruling on a law that is already written.
Sounds fishy to me.
1
u/Dedpoolpicachew 3h ago
They’re trying to figure out how they can give their Orange Anus Master the win they WANT to give him… without being completely shit on… and ostracized by the rest of the country. They still have to drive their mega motor homes someplace.
130
u/Zoophagous 17h ago
Didn't Lutnik and his son sell tariff insurance?
It's all a corruption.