BREAKING: Most of Trump's tariffs ruled illegal

[CowboyTed]

Yep! Can you imagine what would happen to the stock market if this is upheld?

Well the stock market tanked the day he announced the tarrifs

Then, there's all the companies that are moving into the U.S. that will stop?

Ahh, they aren't moving into US... Sure a few announce plans...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/foxconn-mostly-abandons-10-billion-wisconsin-project-touted-by-trump.html

But it doesn't make economic sense fro so many reasons...

Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Tariffs

The Trump tariffs are the largest US tax increase as a percent of GDP since 1993 and amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,500 in 2026.

taxfoundation.org

How Much Would An iPhone Cost If Apple Were Forced To Make It In America?

How much would an iPhone cost if Apple were forced to make it in America? This question was originally answered on Quora by Glenn Luk.

www.forbes.com

What is wrong with the minds of Democrats? There's about 20% of them that need to be exterminated or sent out of the U.S. and never come back.

Nothing, they talked to actual economists... Trump's lead economic advisor wrote a book where he used an imaginary friend to back up his theories

How Trump's tariff expert Peter Navarro made up a fake expert for his book 'Death by China' | World News - The Times of India

US News: Discover the story of Ron Vara, a fictional expert created by Peter Navarro, and how he shaped Trump's trade policies and the economic landscape in America.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Yep, that is the guy who came up with this tariff plan...

 

[TemplarKormac]

DUHHHHH....that was obvious 7 months ago when Trump first began his sabotage of the U.S. economy.

A major blow to Trump.....but a nice W for the Constitution.

President Donald Trump’s cornerstone economic policy was dealt another setback Friday when a federal appeals court ruled he did not have the authority to impose most of his sweeping tariffs on imports from dozens of trading partners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that Trump overstepped his authority in using a 1977 law, called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose most of his tariffs. The emergency law is used in the case of threats against the country.

“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax," a group of federal judges wrote in their ruling.

The decision throws the future of Trump’s foundational economic policy into uncertainty once more, just weeks after the president announced increased levies on more than 60 countries around the world. Those tariffs spared many countries from even higher levels first proposed by Trump in April, but still added much higher taxes than the country has imposed in recent decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/08/29/federal-court-blocks-trump-tariffs/

Smith Hawley Act plus two other laws that allow him to do tariffs.

With that being said. I agree with the reasoning. It's not an emergency. But it needs to be done. Under the right law.

 

[CowboyTed]

The question comes up all the time.... who ends up paying for tariffs... the consumer..
Kamala promised to raise taxes on the corporations .. who ends up paying for corporate taxes... the consumer..

P.S. Don't forget we are NOT PAYING TAXES on tips and overtime... which was Trump's plan all along... takes some of the sting of tariffs..

Actually Corporate Tax actually just take from shareholders profits... Tarrifs goes to the Consumer...

Now if Shareholders want to take more out they can but it would effect their competitiveness....

As for the tax exemption on tips and overtime... Massive amount of strings attached as well as being unfair... Why does a waiter get a tax break but a retail worker pay full amount?

 

[CowboyTed]

Smith Hawley Act plus two other laws that allow him to do tariffs.

With that being said. I agree with the reasoning. It's not an emergency. But it needs to be done. Under the right law.

If wants to do it, pass a law... It is congress job, make them earn their salary...

I will point out there were conservatives and libertarians challenging Trump Executive Order... Real Conservatives and Libertarians believe that government imposing taxes on trade is not right, they don't want the Government getting in the way of commerce...

 

[dudmuck]

It's not a tax imposed by the U.S. Government IRS. The use of the word "tax" is being misused. SCOTUS will overturn this.

It says here,

The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to impose and collect taxes, tariffs, duties, and the like, and to regulate international commerce. While the Constitution gives the President authority to negotiate international agreements, it assigns him no specific power over international commerce and trade.

so did congress give Trump authority to do these tariffs? i think not.

 

[popscottpopscott]

Actually Corporate Tax actually just take from shareholders profits... Tarrifs goes to the Consumer...

Now if Shareholders want to take more out they can but it would effect their competitiveness....

As for the tax exemption on tips and overtime... Massive amount of strings attached as well as being unfair... Why does a waiter get a tax break but a retail worker pay full amount?

Corporate taxes are paid by businesses, the economic realities show that consumers end up paying these taxes through higher prices, lower wages, and reduced economic growth. Corporations don't eat taxes, the end consumer does..

Fact CowboyTed , no taxes on overtime or tips... save your "boo hoo unfair" for someone else. Let him pass the "reduced or no income tax" and liberals will still be bitchin'.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If wants to do it, pass a law... It is congress job, make them earn their salary...

I will point out there were conservatives and libertarians challenging Trump Executive Order... Real Conservatives and Libertarians believe that government imposing taxes on trade is not right, they don't want the Government getting in the way of commerce...

As I just stated, there are already several other laws Trump can use to maintain the tariffs.

 

[Clipper]

hmmm, the court didn't even bother to read the complaint, they just rendered the verdict and mailed it to a higher court...

Because the gubmints pleading were a total shitshow. They were lucky the judges didn't laugh their ignorant lying asses out of court.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."

Unnnnless they cede that power to the President.

 

[Meister]

He went too far. He did NOT follow the law in the so called emergency power, and the emergency power never included tariffs....taxing us, without representation....


....we fought a revolutionary war against King George, for just that....

We are 37 trillion in debt....that's an emergency

 

[Clipper]

View attachment 1156112

Maybe sub-human Trump shouldn't have signed the USMCA, which is NAFTA on steroids, dope.

Next time, try not to repost something from a Fox hack like Ingraham who is so far up Trump's ass it's a wonder she can even breathe

 

[popscottpopscott]

Although the ruling declares the tariffs illegal, it will not take effect until October 14, 2025, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump has publicly criticized the court's decision, labeling it as "highly partisan" and asserting that the tariffs are essential for national security and economic strength.

 

[1srelluc]

Why do dems hate winning?

 

[Clipper]

If you default on your debt or can't pay for your military I guarantee you that you will experience this national security.

Tell it to Trump & his lapdogs in Congress who gave him a Big Beautiful Blowjob raising our debt by trillions of dollars.

 

[BackAgain]

My thread headline is a result of a failure to edit.
“shit” was supposed to be “shut.” But my error is still pretty funny and accurate.

And “Presidnet’s” should have been “President’s.” Entirely my fault.

Ok. I’ll get over it.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Again these judges want to head our Nation, we didnt vote for this!!!!!
2. We voted for Trump, these judges will need to be all, * FIRED!!! *
3. Hire new judges who want to be judges.
4. The Supreme Court, has to reel these bad judges in, * Fire and Replace *
5. Its getting old, and I frankly am tired of it!!!!

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals-court-ieepa.html

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[BackAgain]

It’s a long decision. And I’ll be reading it closely. But here is a direct link:

https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/APPEALSCOURTTRADEOPINION082925.pdf?mod=ANLink

 

[Robert W]

Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Global Tariffs — The Wall Street Journal

Decision delivers blow to central prong of president’s economic agenda; levies will remain in place pending further proceedings

apple.news

They claim that he has gone too far in using an emergency law.

Like every time President Trmo uses powers granted to him by statute or by the Constitution itself, the tyrannical branch seeks to become the Co-President.

I guess “****” the Separation of Powers, eh?

Not yet. The appeals court can't overrule the Supreme Court.

 

[BackAgain]

Not yet. The appeals court can't overrule the Supreme Court.

True. But a major Circuit Court really shouldn’t be rendering these kind of decisions, anyway. Well, that’s overstated. More accurately, they have some legal logic on their side. Plus, they left it stayed pending the Administration’s probable appeal, which is appropriate. So, they deserve props at least for that.

The basic holding is found here:

That paragraph comes late into the main decision. It’s worth reading all of it.

The majority determination looks like it used some strained logic to come to its conclusion which partially seems to have overruled its own precedents. Anyway, that’s arguable.

But I’m still reviewing the decisions. And I guess the Administration’s brief and oral arguments need to get considered along with the dissent.

So, frankly, I won’t be doing it tonight.

But I commend the posting member who noted, above, that a $37 TRILLION debt does kinda meet the meaning of the term “emergency.”

 

[The Irish Ram]

False.

It gives Jameson Greer the power to do that, after a process. A process for each country and each instance.

...grants the President authority...

What about fair trade do you dislike so much that you want us to fail?