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.

  • D_C@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    48 minutes 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?

  • manxu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours 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.

    • arrow74@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      33 minutes ago

      Any other ruling wouldn’t have made sense. The issue was not about if tariffs are legal, but rather if the President has the authority to unilaterally set them.

    • zikzak025@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour 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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour 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

    • can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      123
      ·
      3 hours 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.

    • 3jane@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      31 minutes ago

      There’s always the chance Costco gives its customers something. They have records of everything purchased by members. Every other company, I wouldn’t hold my breath. These tariffs have cost companies a lot in paperwork as well.

      Maybe commercial clients who have bought something really substantial will get something refunded.

      That’s all if Trump’s government complies, which he’s previously said it wouldn’t. He’ll make another excuse or appeal it until he’s gone, making it someone else’s problem.

  • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 hours 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
      18
      ·
      2 hours 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.

    • ceenote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours 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.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Incorrect.

      Only a subset of tariffs were ruled illegal. Mostly because of the method they were declared with.

      Others are, as of now, perfectly legal and will remain in place. And expect many of these to just be declared in a different manner to maintain them.

    • Weydemeyer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 hours 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.

  • Eldritch@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Too little too late supreme court. There’s no one left to enforce the decision.

  • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It’s especially unsurprising that OAN (my bellwether for batshit crazy conservative stuff) aren’t even reporting on this.

    These people live in an entirely different universe of ignorance.

  • bagsy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    So is this an impeachable offense? Im pretty sure if i broke federal law, i would be hunted down and thrown in jail.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours 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
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours 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
            10
            ·
            3 hours 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
              1
              ·
              2 hours 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
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours 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.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 hours 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
            3
            ·
            1 hour 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
              3
              ·
              1 hour 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.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours 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
            7
            ·
            2 hours 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?

      • BillyClark@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours 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
    19
    ·
    3 hours 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.

  • 3jane@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    I wonder how many companies were put out of business by these tariffs?

    • jaschen306@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      46 minutes ago

      My brother in law supplied bubble tea material for bubble tea shops in both the Portland and Vegas area. He shut down 2 months ago because of the tariffs. His increased price made shops in those areas shut down and ultimately he decided enough was enough.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Okay, trump is going to be pissed about this, so why did they do it? Do they think he’s going to die or are there different handlers in play here that are losing money?

    • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I’m wondering if contributing factor could be that he is giving himself 10 billion of taxpayer’s money? He is straight stealing from us, literally to his own bank account in Qatar.

      He would have to ask Congress if it weren’t for the tariffs.

    • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They see the tide turning. And Trump will be dead by summer. Time to start positioning JD as the good guy … then they’ll start their bullshit up again…

      • rbos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 minutes ago

        Beast Rabban is dead, long love kind, glorious Feyd-Rautha!

        • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          There’s a term that I can’t recall about positioning a bad person as a less bad alternative in order to gain support.

          So basically the theory is when Trump goes, they’ll say, look he was the bad one, it’ll all be better now with this other guy.

  • rozodru@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    oh neat. so that means this ruling will be enforced right? …right?

    of course it won’t. it’s another dog and pony show from the US.