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

[Care4all]

If they are constitutional under one or more of the Acts I mentioned, other than under the IEEPA, then the tariffs are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power). The petitions seeking to recoup the tariffs they paid, would have to prove they are not intra vires (within the government’s power) if the Trump Administration appeals on such grounds.

They appealed already to the Supreme court, and trump lost. SC said his tariffs are illegal....a tax, and with no express permission from Congress.

 

[IM2]

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.

No, they really aren't. Name the threat to our security that supports a 15-20 percent tariff on all goods from everybody.

 

[Care4all]

All of which seems irrelevant.

Correct me if I am wrong. Is it not a fact that ignorance of the law excuses no one? Additionally, is not also a fact that law-abiding actions remain lawful, regardless of the actor's knowledge?

Seems to me those who paid Trump's tariffs, if the tariffs are legal under the other Acts of Congress, then the petitioners have no real legal leg to stand on.

They are not simply legal under other acts....there are specific demands by congress for the president to meet before congress gives the president permission.

Trump did not meet those requirements by congress on those other Acts and bills to issue tariffs that congress gave permission for....and THAT is why he did not use these other bills for tariffs across the board universally.

So Trump tried to slip them through with IEEPA....

 

[meaner gene]

If they are constitutional under one or more of the Acts I mentioned, other than under the IEEPA, then the tariffs are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power). The petitions seeking to recoup the tariffs they paid, would have to prove they are not intra vires (within the government’s power) if the Trump Administration appeals on such grounds.

Absolutely wrong. Every statute stands on it's own. And powers under one statute don't transfer to another.
Such as the UCMJ authorizes the death penalty for many crimes during time of war, but not outside time of war.

Just because they can do things during time of war (national emergency), doesn't mean they can do the same in peacetime.

 

[Crepitus]

If they are constitutional under one or more of the Acts I mentioned, other than under the IEEPA, then the tariffs are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power). The petitions seeking to recoup the tariffs they paid, would have to prove they are not intra vires (within the government’s power) if the Trump Administration appeals on such grounds.

OK, is this some sorta joke?

I have explained this multiple times and will not do it again.

You cannot really be this dumb and still manage to feed yourself.

 

[Crepitus]

All of which seems irrelevant.

Correct me if I am wrong. Is it not a fact that ignorance of the law excuses no one? Additionally, is not also a fact that law-abiding actions remain lawful, regardless of the actor's knowledge?

Seems to me those who paid Trump's tariffs, if the tariffs are legal under the other Acts of Congress, then the petitioners have no real legal leg to stand on.

They cannot retroactictively change the justification.

 

[leftwinger]

Well, they weren’t actually permissible according to the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS I should add that is heavily conservative. Go figure

You forget it was over a mere technicality. How convenient of you and your TDS brethren. Re-classify rectoacively and keep it going.

Why would anyone not support fairer trade policy?

 

[Care4all]

You forget it was over a mere technicality. How convenient of you and your TDS brethren. Re-classify rectoacively and keep it going.

Why would anyone not support fairer trade policy?

They would support fairer trade, but that is the job of Congress according to the constitution, or needs their vote and approval.

Trump is bombastically changing the tariffs day by day, universally across the board and NOT TRYING to right the wrongs in individual trade policies we have with other countries, but using them chaotically to try to bully and negotiate universally....

Instead of looking at the individual country, identify where they are dicking us in trade, and fix that one or two problems....

 

[leftwinger]

They would support fairer trade, but that is the job of Congress according to the constitution, or needs their vote and approval.

Trump is bombastically changing the tariffs day by day, universally across the board and NOT TRYING to right the wrongs in individual trade policies we have with other countries, but using them chaotically to try to bully and negotiate universally....

Instead of looking at the individual country, identify where they are dicking us in trade, and fix that one or two problems....

Got a lot to fix after 12 years of your dirty crap. No time to sit around waiting on Do-Nothing-Slowly dirty 90 yr olds in Congress.

 

[Captain Caveman]

.
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 foreseeable because the ruling went against the tariffs. It just means your national debt increases.

The problem the US and planet has, they import this junk from China. And what's worse, you're celebrating China junk is costing your country, you can't get anymore dumber than that, tbh.

 

[Dragonlady]

You forget it was over a mere technicality. How convenient of you and your TDS brethren. Re-classify rectoacively and keep it going.

Why would anyone not support fairer trade policy?

Bullshit. It was no mere "technicality". The Act Trump used to justify the tariffs contains no mention of tariffs and doesn't allow the President to impose them.

Furthermore, Trump has publicly stated that he imposed tariff's on Brazil because he didn't like them prosecuting their former President for his attempted overthrow of the government.

The purpose of Trump's tariffs isn't a "fairer trade policy". It's difficult to know what his intention might be because the rationale shifts ever time he opens his mouth. What we do know it the result of his policy: prices are going up, and investors are pulling out of their commitment to build US based manufacturing.

Trump talks about trade deficits as the US "supporting" other nations, which is bullshit. We're SELLING you stuff and you're paying for the goods and services you bought. You're not "giving" us cash for nothing. This isn't welfare, it's business. Like going into a store and buying something.

In many cases, you're getting a better deal than you could get elsewhere. A trade deficit means that you buy more from us than we sell to you. That's it. It's not even a bad thing.

Canada sells you our oil at a 25% DISCOUNT of the OPEC price for crude, or at least, we used to. We sell electricity to 22 states at lower prices than Canadians pay for our electricity. We're recently made deals to sell our oil and LNG to Europe and Asia. Ditto our lumber.

Trump talks about dairy tariffs Canada applies on dairy imports, but even that is a lie. Dairy production is subject to supply control. Dairy farmers have a quota they can produce at a given price. If they exceed their quota, they will not be paid for the excess milk, and may be forced to dump it. If they are routinely exceeding quota, this can result in fines.

Canada has given American farmers a tariff free quota as well. If exports exceed that quote, they are subject to high tariffs - no different from our own farmers fines. Trump is demanding that American farmers have no quota and no tariffs. NO. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

[johnwk]

They cannot retroactictively change the justification.

They wouldn't be doing so if the tariffs were always intra vires (within the government's power from the beginning).

 

[johnwk]

They are not simply legal under other acts....

What is your documentation that the Trump tariffs are not authorized under one or more of the following Acts?

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;

If they are constitutional under one or more of the above Acts of Congress, then the tariffs are lawful.

 

[johnwk]

No, they really aren't. Name the threat to our security that supports a 15-20 percent tariff on all goods from everybody.

Are you admitting that if there is such a "threat". the Trump's tariffs then could very well be lawful under one or more of the following Acts?

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;

If they are constitutional under one or more of the above Acts of Congress, then the tariffs of lawful.

 

[johnwk]

You forget it was over a mere technicality. How convenient of you and your TDS brethren. Re-classify rectoacively and keep it going.

Why would anyone not support fairer trade policy?

As I recall, the S.C's majority opinion in Trump's tariff case focused on the lack of explicit language in IEEPA for raising revenue and noted that other laws—specifically Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974—contain the kind of specific delegation and procedural constraints that IEEPA lacks

But hey, our FIFTH COLUMN activists and those with TDS, will do and say anything to prevent the making of America great again.

 

[leftwinger]

As I recall, the S.C's majority opinion in Trump's tariff case focused on the lack of explicit language in IEEPA for raising revenue and noted that other laws—specifically Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974—contain the kind of specific delegation and procedural constraints that IEEPA lacks

But hey, our FIFTH COLUMN activists and those with TDS, will do and say anything to prevent the making of America great again.

Stall, Delay, Lie, Steal, Fraud for anything and everything to stop Trump fixing the damaged Country.

President Trump could say, free milk&eggs to anyone with kids under 18 at home and Marxist would stop it with an Obiden judge.

 

[johnwk]

Stall, Delay, Lie, Steal, Fraud for anything and everything to stop Trump fixing the damaged Country.

President Trump could say, free milk&eggs to anyone with kids under 18 at home and Marxist would stop it with an Obiden judge.

Trump seems to have sufficient grounds to appeal Judge Richard Eaton's ruling and win!

If Trump's tariffs are constitutional under the Acts cited by the S.C's majority opinion (Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974) , then Trump's tariffs are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power) and the petitioners to sustain a claim, would have to prove they are not lawful, that is, if the Trump Administration appeals on such grounds (the tariffs are lawful, intra vires).
.
If I remember my "tax theory and practices" studies correctly ___ if a tax is paid under the "wrong" statute but remains legally owed under a different one, it generally prevents a refund.

 

[Crepitus]

They wouldn't be doing so if the tariffs were always intra vires (within the government's power from the beginning).

 

[Slade3200]

You forget it was over a mere technicality. How convenient of you and your TDS brethren. Re-classify rectoacively and keep it going.

Why would anyone not support fairer trade policy?

Trumps hand pick SCOTUS isn’t TDS genius. Your excuses don’t even make sense. More than a technicality. It was breaking the law. Abuse of power. No surprise with Donnie the Fascist. Keep cheering it on

 

[johnwk]

Trumps hand pick SCOTUS isn’t TDS genius. Your excuses don’t even make sense. More than a technicality. It was breaking the law. Abuse of power. No surprise with Donnie the Fascist. Keep cheering it on

S.C. says "No one is entitled a refund who has not actually overpaid his taxes"

We are here talking about settled tax law.

If a tax is paid under a "wrong" statute not requiring a tax paid, but the amount of tax paid is legally owed under a different statute, no refund is owed. See: Lewis v. Reynolds (1932), and Donnelley Corporation v United States (2011) in which the court notes:

“No one is entitled a refund who has not actually overpaid his taxes. This axiomatic observation, made first by the Supreme Court in Lewis and recognized by this circuit in Estate of Michael, defeats this taxpayer's claim. Here, Donnelley has not overpaid its taxes, and we will not allow it to reap where it has not sown. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.”

The bottom line is, if you legally owe $500 under Statute B but paid it under Statute A, you cannot get a refund because you have not actually overpaid your total tax liability owed.

Keep in mind the S.C. noted Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, contain the delegation and procedural constraints necessary to allow for Trump's tariffs.


As I previously stated, and correctly so, if Trump's tariffs are constitutional under the above Acts cited by the S.C., then Trump's tariffs are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power) and the petitioners to sustain a claim, would have to prove they are not lawful, that is, if the Trump Administration appeals Judge Richard Eaton's ruling on such grounds (the tariffs are lawful, intra vires).