CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)
- Thread starter Remius
- Start date
IEEPA was what Trump felt was most
Immediately at hand and least constrained. It’s now been confirmed that he acted illegally. Any further actions he takes will be more constrained, and less able to be perpetuated indefinitely and unilaterally.
He has been talking for months about how much trouble the country is in if SCOTUS decides the way it decided today. So, he at least doesn’t seem to find it minor.
What SCOTUS did not resolve today is the repayment of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs that were illegally collected. A lot of businesses will have lawsuits ready to file Monday (if not today) on that issue. The U.S. government potentially faces hundreds of billions of liabilities in treating taxes that they never should have collected from Americans. That will be a mess.
- Reaction score
- 6,768
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 6,768
- Points
- 1,260
COSTCO already has lawsuits ongoing with this.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,040
Sure. Meanwhile:
As one Canadian business executive just pointed out on CBC News Network, Trump's so-called "fentanyl" tariffs — the ones that apply to Canadian steel, aluminum and auto parts — are still in place.
"I think there will be an inclination to sort of claim victory here for those who felt that the IEEPA tariffs were unjust, but the reality for business is going to be that we're not seeing the end of this never-ending tariff story," said Matthew Holmes, the executive vice-president and chief of public policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
"We're going to see continued tariffs, we're going to see this administration continue to pursue that goal," said Holmes. "This ruling does not apply to those [Section 232] tariffs at all."
Like I said...recommend against mass celebrations.
As one Canadian business executive just pointed out on CBC News Network, Trump's so-called "fentanyl" tariffs — the ones that apply to Canadian steel, aluminum and auto parts — are still in place.
"I think there will be an inclination to sort of claim victory here for those who felt that the IEEPA tariffs were unjust, but the reality for business is going to be that we're not seeing the end of this never-ending tariff story," said Matthew Holmes, the executive vice-president and chief of public policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
"We're going to see continued tariffs, we're going to see this administration continue to pursue that goal," said Holmes. "This ruling does not apply to those [Section 232] tariffs at all."
Like I said...recommend against mass celebrations.
Instant View: Stocks jump after US Supreme Court rejects Trump's tariffs
Stock markets in the United States and Europe jumped on Friday after the Supreme Court struck down U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, a key pillar of the adminstration's economic platform.
www.reuters.com
- Reaction score
- 11,336
- Points
- 1,040
A win. Almost all of the legal tea-leaf readers were correct.
Like prior administrations, this one may try to find other excuses (powers) for what it wants to do and carry on while those are litigated. If this one (IEEPA) was chosen because they figured it was their best shot, the likelihood of other gambits succeeding should be a series of rapidly diminishing numbers.
Like prior administrations, this one may try to find other excuses (powers) for what it wants to do and carry on while those are litigated. If this one (IEEPA) was chosen because they figured it was their best shot, the likelihood of other gambits succeeding should be a series of rapidly diminishing numbers.
There are portions of the decision today beginning to get noted and commented on that paint a picture of the current court being skeptical of the president’s purported tariff powers overall. Taxing Americans is a congressional power for a reason.
We’ll almost certainly see him try to act illegally again using other tariff sections, but there’s a clear path to challenge any subsequent less fully baked efforts in court.
- Reaction score
- 6,768
- Points
- 1,260
A pretty good explanation of the next steps around refunding the illegally gathered tariffs.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca
The case will now go back to the Court of International Trade to sort through the refunds.
The court ruled in December that it had the power to reopen the final tariff determinations and order the government to pay refunds with interest -- an authority the Trump administration said in court it would not challenge. That decision removed potential legal complications to refunds, according to trade experts.
The process could disproportionately hurt smaller businesses, many of which already suffered more from tariffs than well-funded companies like Costco. Lawyers for importers said some smaller importers might abandon a potential refund rather than pay thousands of dollars in legal and court fees to bring a case. - so in essence a tax imposed on all small businesses in the US impacted by this.
How will companies get refunds now that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Trump’s tariffs?
The U.S. Supreme Court did not say how the government should refund the illegal tariffs, worth an estimated US$175 billion.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca
How will companies get refunds now that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Trump’s tariffs?
Did the U.S. Supreme Court say how to refund the money?
No.The case will now go back to the Court of International Trade to sort through the refunds.
How might refunds be handled?
More than 1,000 lawsuits have been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a flood of new cases is likely.The court ruled in December that it had the power to reopen the final tariff determinations and order the government to pay refunds with interest -- an authority the Trump administration said in court it would not challenge. That decision removed potential legal complications to refunds, according to trade experts.
What will importers have to do to get a refund?
Each importer might have to sue in the Court of International Trade to get a refund, and it is not clear that a class action could be formed to cover the broad range of companies that paid tariffs, legal experts said. Importers have two years to sue to claim a refund, under U.S. trade law.The process could disproportionately hurt smaller businesses, many of which already suffered more from tariffs than well-funded companies like Costco. Lawyers for importers said some smaller importers might abandon a potential refund rather than pay thousands of dollars in legal and court fees to bring a case. - so in essence a tax imposed on all small businesses in the US impacted by this.
Is there a precedent for these refunds?
The Court of International Trade has overseen large-scale refunds before. Congress enacted a harbor maintenance tax in 1986 that was assessed on the value of all cargo into and out of U.S. ports. The Supreme Court ruled part of the tax was unconstitutional in 1998. The Court of International Trade oversaw a refund process involving more than 100,000 claimants that was managed by Judge Jane Restani, who remains on the court.
- Reaction score
- 4,818
- Points
- 1,160
I’ll be interested to see if the Canadian Federal Government and the Alberta Government do anything to help this along in Montana… 550,000 BPD is 12 billion$ per year worth of oil at today’s price. And unlike in Canada, it’s all private and no extra government funding requested.
- Reaction score
- 8,121
- Points
- 1,160
The point I was trying to make was Trump imposing tariffs was a major setback for the US; the tariffs being struck down as illegal by SCOTUS is a setback for the Trump administration (vice the US).
For the US in general, this is a win. For the Orange Mussolini, this is a big L.
