by jml7c5 on 5/29/25, 12:21 AM
by neonate on 5/29/25, 12:56 AM
by mangoman on 5/29/25, 1:11 AM
I'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)
by siliconc0w on 5/29/25, 1:46 AM
I 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.
by Leo-thorne on 5/29/25, 3:08 AM
This 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.
by tnel77 on 5/29/25, 12:25 AM
Not 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.
by EasyMark on 5/29/25, 3:16 PM
I'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
by drivingmenuts on 5/29/25, 4:21 AM
Betcha he just ignores the ruling and carries on as normal (or tries to, anyway).
by Brybry on 5/29/25, 3:49 AM
by adrianmonk on 5/29/25, 12:42 AM
So, 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?
by codelikeawolf on 5/29/25, 1:10 PM
> 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?
by pjmlp on 5/29/25, 4:48 AM
Great, 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.
by BobbyTables2 on 5/29/25, 12:55 AM
So when do prices go back down?
by firesteelrain on 5/29/25, 12:33 AM
It’s not the end of this saga. Prior administrations, Republican and Democrat, have enacted tariffs without additional congressional approval.
by solardev on 5/29/25, 1:55 AM
Does it really matter what a court finds, anymore? We don't exactly live in law-abiding times.
by ycui1986 on 5/29/25, 3:32 AM
does this mean we stop paying tariff tomorrow ?
by almog on 5/29/25, 8:18 AM
This 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)
by koakuma-chan on 5/29/25, 12:42 AM
And what happens now?
by drewcoo on 5/29/25, 1:50 AM
You 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.
by TrapLord_Rhodo on 5/30/25, 6:53 PM
They'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.
by duxup on 5/29/25, 12:24 AM
The 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 ...
by master_crab on 5/29/25, 12:07 AM
by jakek on 5/29/25, 12:28 AM
by Spooky23 on 5/29/25, 12:40 AM
It 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.
by Simulacra on 5/29/25, 1:09 AM
This 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.
by arunabha on 5/29/25, 2:49 AM
I'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=43487014The 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.
by synergy20 on 5/29/25, 3:24 AM
It'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.
by blobbers on 5/29/25, 4:25 AM
Why 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?
by ivape on 5/29/25, 12:23 AM
I'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.