U.S. trade court judge tells Trump to return tariff money. Ruling is absurd!

[johnwk]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

 

[Eman623]

So when do I get my refund for all the stuff I bought that was made in China?

Don't forget, consumers pay the tariffs. That's what the left has been screaming for the last year.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

This will not get very far in the court system

 

[Augustine_]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

Ahaha this is truly the dumbest administration in American history

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This will not get very far in the court system

LOL. It already has. Skippy owes that cash!

 

[Darkwind]

LOL. It already has. Skippy owes that cash!

it won't matter skippy until it gets to the Supremes.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

it won't matter skippy until it gets to the Supremes.

The Supremes have already ruled, Dark Man.
Skippy..owes the cash.

 

[johnwk]

it won't matter skippy until it gets to the Supremes.

Constitutional Status of tariff by Act

• Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338
  • Status: Untested but likely constitutional if applied narrowly.
  • Details: This "unreasonable discrimination" provision allows tariffs of up to 50% on countries that disadvantage U.S. commerce. While it has never been used for broad tariffs, legal experts believe its explicit mention of "duties" makes it a valid (though country-specific) delegation of power.
• Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934
  • Status: Constitutional within specific limits.
  • Details: This Act (specifically Section 350) authorizes the President to negotiate trade deals and adjust tariff rates by up to 50% without further congressional action. It is widely viewed as a valid delegation of power because it provides "intelligible principles" for the President to follow.
• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
  • Status: Constitutional and currently in effect.
  • Details: Courts have repeatedly upheld this authority, which allows the President to adjust imports that "threaten to impair the national security". Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, as well as newer ones on cars and lumber, were unaffected by the recent Supreme Court ruling because they rely on this specific statutory grant.
• Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974
  • Status: Constitutional but requires specific procedures.
  • Details: Known as the "global safeguard" mechanism, it allows temporary tariffs (up to 50%) to protect domestic industries from injury. It requires a formal investigation and finding by the International Trade Commission (ITC), making it a structured and legally sound delegation.
• Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
  • Status: Constitutional and currently in effect.
  • Details: This is the President's primary retaliatory authority against "unjustifiable" or "unreasonable" foreign trade practices. The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling explicitly stated that Section 301 tariffs, such as those on Chinese-origin goods, remain valid because they were authorized by an act of Congress specifically for that purpose.

Fact is, Trump's tariffs are legal under one or more of the above mentioned Acts.

Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

 

[Lockback]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

It's total bullshit call by yet another total bullshit judge.
We need to fix this problem.
And soon.

 

[scruffy]

Leftards need to grow a brain.

 

[Lockback]

Leftards need to grow a brain.

Good luck with that.

 

[Darkwind]

Constitutional Status of tariff by Act

• Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338
  • Status: Untested but likely constitutional if applied narrowly.
  • Details: This "unreasonable discrimination" provision allows tariffs of up to 50% on countries that disadvantage U.S. commerce. While it has never been used for broad tariffs, legal experts believe its explicit mention of "duties" makes it a valid (though country-specific) delegation of power.
• Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934
  • Status: Constitutional within specific limits.
  • Details: This Act (specifically Section 350) authorizes the President to negotiate trade deals and adjust tariff rates by up to 50% without further congressional action. It is widely viewed as a valid delegation of power because it provides "intelligible principles" for the President to follow.
• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
  • Status: Constitutional and currently in effect.
  • Details: Courts have repeatedly upheld this authority, which allows the President to adjust imports that "threaten to impair the national security". Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, as well as newer ones on cars and lumber, were unaffected by the recent Supreme Court ruling because they rely on this specific statutory grant.
• Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974
  • Status: Constitutional but requires specific procedures.
  • Details: Known as the "global safeguard" mechanism, it allows temporary tariffs (up to 50%) to protect domestic industries from injury. It requires a formal investigation and finding by the International Trade Commission (ITC), making it a structured and legally sound delegation.
• Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
  • Status: Constitutional and currently in effect.
  • Details: This is the President's primary retaliatory authority against "unjustifiable" or "unreasonable" foreign trade practices. The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling explicitly stated that Section 301 tariffs, such as those on Chinese-origin goods, remain valid because they were authorized by an act of Congress specifically for that purpose.

Fact is, Trump's tariffs are legal under one or more of the above mentioned Acts.

Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

I know. Did you think I was standing otherwise?

 

[Darkwind]

Leftards need to grow a brain.

You know, I was going to remind you that it would be temporally beyond the life span of our illumination before that happened.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Ahaha this is truly the dumbest administration in American history

Who you like better ?

 

[Invisibleflash]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

Don't know if the little guy, gal or zir will ever see a penny of it.

 

[Care4all]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

It was illegal under the IEEPA, which is the act Trump used as his tool to issue them. The Supreme Court ruled it was ILLEGAL under the IEEPA act that Trump used.

The tariffs under that IEEPA act have to be refunded to the American importer who paid the tariff tax at the port of entry.

The retailer who paid the importer the higher price for the tariffed goods to the importer, and the consumer who paid the higher price the retailer had to use to the retailer, will likely never get their .money back....

Though, the retailer has a better shot at the importer crediting them for the tariff cost increase....

But us, the consumer will likely just get a lower price on future purchases at best.

No, the president can't use those other acts listed either, for tariffs....unless an imminent threat emergency or security event, the president can not unilaterally issue tariffs across the board, as he has illegally and unconstitutionally done.

 

[drudge X]

lol.. US trade judge tells Trump to return the loot.

Why don’t leftists demand companies to return the money to consumers and lower the price drastically?

 

[Crepitus]

So when do I get my refund for all the stuff I bought that was made in China?

Don't forget, consumers pay the tariffs. That's what the left has been screaming for the last year.

We do.

We did.

If you think the companies we bought the stuff from are going to refund any money to the little guys you are completely delusional.

 

[Crepitus]

lol.. US trade judge tells Trump to return the loot.

Why don’t leftists demand companies to return the money to consumers and lower the price drastically?

We are.

 

[Crepitus]

Constitutional Status of tariff by Act

• Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338
  • Status: Untested but likely constitutional if applied narrowly.
  • Details: This "unreasonable discrimination" provision allows tariffs of up to 50% on countries that disadvantage U.S. commerce. While it has never been used for broad tariffs, legal experts believe its explicit mention of "duties" makes it a valid (though country-specific) delegation of power.
• Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934
  • Status: Constitutional within specific limits.
  • Details: This Act (specifically Section 350) authorizes the President to negotiate trade deals and adjust tariff rates by up to 50% without further congressional action. It is widely viewed as a valid delegation of power because it provides "intelligible principles" for the President to follow.
• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
  • Status: Constitutional and currently in effect.
  • Details: Courts have repeatedly upheld this authority, which allows the President to adjust imports that "threaten to impair the national security". Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, as well as newer ones on cars and lumber, were unaffected by the recent Supreme Court ruling because they rely on this specific statutory grant.
• Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974
  • Status: Constitutional but requires specific procedures.
  • Details: Known as the "global safeguard" mechanism, it allows temporary tariffs (up to 50%) to protect domestic industries from injury. It requires a formal investigation and finding by the International Trade Commission (ITC), making it a structured and legally sound delegation.
• Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
  • Status: Constitutional and currently in effect.
  • Details: This is the President's primary retaliatory authority against "unjustifiable" or "unreasonable" foreign trade practices. The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling explicitly stated that Section 301 tariffs, such as those on Chinese-origin goods, remain valid because they were authorized by an act of Congress specifically for that purpose.

Fact is, Trump's tariffs are legal under one or more of the above mentioned Acts.

Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

You can't retroactively justify it under another law.

Maybe they can use it going forward, but the monies they have already collected were collected illegally.

We call that "theft", you know.