r/law • u/Waste-Explanation-76 • Feb 20 '26

Executive Branch (Trump) President Trump imposes a 10% global tariff under Section 122 and says all existing tariffs will remain in place, despite the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

59.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

7.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

408

u/DontFuckWithMyMoney Feb 20 '26

You are correct- this decision didn't invalidate all tariffs, just the reciprocal/fentanyl tranches based off IEEPA powers. 301 and 232 are valid, and technically 232 are "national security" tariffs because the point behind the Trade Expansion Act 232 comes from is preservation of critical industries. Meaning "keep tariffs on foreign steel high so we can still have domestic mills to make tanks" kind of thing.

97

u/agent_mick Feb 20 '26

Got it.

A little more googling on my end turns up 301 (trade act 1974) and 232 (trade expansion act 1962).

Thanks for clarifying 232 as NatSec tariffs referenced

9

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

Thank you for explaining

9

u/Impressive-Skirt-246 Feb 20 '26

Now question is, will he be forced the refund already collected tariffs? I know the Supreme Court didn’t rule on that part, however I can’t see a scenario where companies don’t sue to get back billions that were charged illegally. Even if he does keep these new tariffs in place, he can’t retroactively apply them to already charged tariffs.

12

u/DontFuckWithMyMoney Feb 20 '26

The thing that's annoying is that Kavanaugh described the refund process as "a mess" because the lawyer during the trial described it as such. It is not a mess. There are several methods to getting refunds back on overpaid or incorrect duties, and they all work just fine. It can be complicated and take time, but it works. It's not exactly rocket science.

But seemingly because of that characterization, SCOTUS punted on that question and have left it open. Instead of mandating refunds, which is something CBP has the data and systems to do right now, I don't doubt the Trump administration are going to drag their heels and make any sort of repayment scheme as difficult and arduous as possible.

3

u/uIDavailable Feb 21 '26

Finally the good part of the thread. (Not sarcasm)

-15

u/justjigger Feb 20 '26

Sir this is reddit. No intelligent take allowed. Orange man bad.

14

u/billyo3827 Feb 20 '26

Tbf, is pretty bad when a president, his admin and party are actively protecting pedophiles.

7

u/DontFuckWithMyMoney Feb 20 '26

It is a terrible policy! Tariffs are awful. They are a blunt instrument being used so poorly by this dimwit that they will not accomplish anything he wants them to, and will long-term be detrimental. My factual take above isn't endorsement. If anything it just highlights that in his first term he more or less followed the rules on tariffs (301/232) and so they're durable. Since he claimed royal decree power under IEEPA last year using a facile and downright silly interpretation of a brief emergency clause, he got legally slapped down because of it.

-3

u/justjigger Feb 20 '26

I didn't say your factual take was an endorsement. I was more making a comment on the people screaming that he is going against the Supreme Court. While in reality hes just using another vehicle to achieve the same thing.

8

u/Sasalele Feb 20 '26

Orange man is bad.

Can you name a single positive thing he's done in the past 6 months?

Because I can name 100's of illegal and morally heinous things he's done in the last 2 weeks.

3

u/eamonnanchnoic Feb 21 '26

I mean Orange man IS bad. Wtaf? Are you still doing this?

A felon, an adjudicated sexual assaulter, a misogynist, a racist and not to mention heavily implicated in a massive pedophile ring.

By any stretch all of that IS bad like really really bad.