VIDEO: Conservative economist Jessica Riedl:
"The economic threats are real and many. Tariffs are raising prices, paralyzing business investment, alienating our allies, and harming the very manufacturing sector that they're supposed to be helping. We face upside inflation risks from tariffs, immigration restrictions, tax cuts, spending hikes, and Trump pressuring the Fed to cut rates. Economic growth forecasts are sluggish due to immigrant worker deportations and labor force growth trending towards zero. The economy created just 181,000 jobs last year — that's one-tenth of the average rate over the last decade. And employers have the fewest job openings posted since the Great Recession. Housing starts and residential construction spending are falling sharply. We have crony capitalism and government taking steps to nationalize major companies. Consumer confidence is at a twelve year low. Real personal disposable income has not grown since the tariffs. Budget deficits are heading to $4 trillion a year under current policy within a decade, and that's with low interest rates. Social security and Medicare are on pace to push the debt to 250% of GDP in three decades. Washington has based its entire long-term budget projections on the interest rate paid on their bonds not rising ever above 3.8%, and we're doing bond auctions right now at 4.5%. So much of these costs are the results of giving an economically illiterate president nearly unchecked power over economic policy."
SCOTUS says no to tariffs
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS says no to tariffs
NYT TARIFF STORY AS OF 8.15 FRIDAY EVENING, FEB. 20.
IS ANYONE SICK OF THIS NONSENSE YET?
"A Supreme Court decision on Friday striking down President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs dealt a major blow to his economic agenda and brought new uncertainty to global markets struggling to adapt to his whipsawing trade policies that was compounded when he announced that he was imposing a new across-the-board 10 percent tariff.
The court, in a 6-to-3 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ruled that Mr. Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner last year. The ruling prompted a defiant response from the president: In a news conference at the White House, Mr. Trump excoriated the justices who had ruled against him as “fools and lap dogs” and foreshadowed the new tariffs he announced within hours, to begin on Tuesday.
The court’s ruling threw into doubt a series of trade deals with countries around the world that the administration struck in recent months, and left unclear whether U.S. companies or consumers would be able to reclaim some of the more than $200 billion in fees the federal government has collected since the start of last year. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh warned in a dissent that any refund process could be a substantial “mess.”
The ruling also appeared to create a trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget because the tariffs that were upended had helped fill the gap caused by his income tax cut.
Mr. Trump was the first president to claim that the 1977 IEEPA emergency statute, which does not mention the word “tariffs,” allowed him to unilaterally impose the duties without congressional approval. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that statute did not. The court’s ruling, backed by justices from across the ideological spectrum, was a rare and significant example of the Supreme Court pushing back on Mr. Trump’s agenda.
A small but vocal group of Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in celebrating the court’s ruling, reflecting frustration that their branch of government has ceded its authority over trade matters to the White House. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and former longtime party leader, said the ruling left “no room for doubt” that Mr. Trump’s circumventing of Congress was “illegal.”
Here’s what else to know:
Trump’s workaround: The ruling eliminated Mr. Trump’s primary tool for imposing tariffs, but he moved to work around the court by imposing levies using other trade powers. He cited Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act in setting the 10 percent tariff for Tuesday. No president before him had invoked that provision. He also said he would use Section 301 of the act to investigate other countries’ unfair trade practices, possibly resulting in additional tariffs.
Trade deals: Many of the trade agreements countries struck with the United States set tariffs at around 15 percent or 20 percent, lowering what would have been steeper duties in exchange for favorable trade concessions and promises to invest in the United States. On Friday, Mr. Trump said some of the agreements would stand, but did not elaborate.
Tariff refunds: The administration may have to refund more than $100 billion in tariff revenue to thousands of American importers — a head-spinning process unparalleled in scale and complexity that could take months or even years.
“Fools and lap dogs”: Reading from prepared remarks, Mr. Trump assailed the six Supreme Court justices who ruled against him, some of whom he had nominated, accusing them of being disloyal to the Constitution.
Court dissenters: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the president should be able to impose tariffs under the power to conduct foreign affairs, and they warned the court’s decision would cause chaos as importers sought refunds of fees they paid."
IS ANYONE SICK OF THIS NONSENSE YET?
"A Supreme Court decision on Friday striking down President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs dealt a major blow to his economic agenda and brought new uncertainty to global markets struggling to adapt to his whipsawing trade policies that was compounded when he announced that he was imposing a new across-the-board 10 percent tariff.
The court, in a 6-to-3 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ruled that Mr. Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner last year. The ruling prompted a defiant response from the president: In a news conference at the White House, Mr. Trump excoriated the justices who had ruled against him as “fools and lap dogs” and foreshadowed the new tariffs he announced within hours, to begin on Tuesday.
The court’s ruling threw into doubt a series of trade deals with countries around the world that the administration struck in recent months, and left unclear whether U.S. companies or consumers would be able to reclaim some of the more than $200 billion in fees the federal government has collected since the start of last year. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh warned in a dissent that any refund process could be a substantial “mess.”
The ruling also appeared to create a trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget because the tariffs that were upended had helped fill the gap caused by his income tax cut.
Mr. Trump was the first president to claim that the 1977 IEEPA emergency statute, which does not mention the word “tariffs,” allowed him to unilaterally impose the duties without congressional approval. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that statute did not. The court’s ruling, backed by justices from across the ideological spectrum, was a rare and significant example of the Supreme Court pushing back on Mr. Trump’s agenda.
A small but vocal group of Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in celebrating the court’s ruling, reflecting frustration that their branch of government has ceded its authority over trade matters to the White House. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and former longtime party leader, said the ruling left “no room for doubt” that Mr. Trump’s circumventing of Congress was “illegal.”
Here’s what else to know:
Trump’s workaround: The ruling eliminated Mr. Trump’s primary tool for imposing tariffs, but he moved to work around the court by imposing levies using other trade powers. He cited Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act in setting the 10 percent tariff for Tuesday. No president before him had invoked that provision. He also said he would use Section 301 of the act to investigate other countries’ unfair trade practices, possibly resulting in additional tariffs.
Trade deals: Many of the trade agreements countries struck with the United States set tariffs at around 15 percent or 20 percent, lowering what would have been steeper duties in exchange for favorable trade concessions and promises to invest in the United States. On Friday, Mr. Trump said some of the agreements would stand, but did not elaborate.
Tariff refunds: The administration may have to refund more than $100 billion in tariff revenue to thousands of American importers — a head-spinning process unparalleled in scale and complexity that could take months or even years.
“Fools and lap dogs”: Reading from prepared remarks, Mr. Trump assailed the six Supreme Court justices who ruled against him, some of whom he had nominated, accusing them of being disloyal to the Constitution.
Court dissenters: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the president should be able to impose tariffs under the power to conduct foreign affairs, and they warned the court’s decision would cause chaos as importers sought refunds of fees they paid."
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS says no to tariffs
Justice Kavannaugh's description of a 'mess' is pretty likely an understatement.
https://www.kron4.com/news/california/n ... d-illegal/
https://www.kron4.com/news/california/n ... d-illegal/
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS says no to tariffs
Calif already is.
-
mister_coffee
- Posts: 2644
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
- Location: Winthrop, WA
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS says no to tariffs
Probably the next step is for states to start doing their own free-trade agreements.
David Bonn 
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS says no to tariffs
What Trump's reaction tells us
https://www.jackhopkinsnow.com/p/the-mo ... irect=true
https://www.jackhopkinsnow.com/p/the-mo ... irect=true
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS says no to tariffs
and SCOTUS acknowledged re payment
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS says no to tariffs
Statement from Governor Bob Ferguson on U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Trump’s unlawful tariffs
OLYMPIA – Governor Bob Ferguson issued the following statement today on the Supreme Court’s decision to block the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs:
“Washington is one of the most trade-dependent states in the nation. Research has shown that American companies and consumers are bearing 90 percent of the economic burden of President Trump’s tariffs. That’s why I led a coalition of more than two dozen public and private partners to tell Washington’s story to the Supreme Court. The court agreed with us, and struck down the President’s harmful and illegal tariffs.
“I will always stand up for Washington families, workers and businesses.”
In the 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump could not invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to set tariffs on imports.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said: “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
In October, Governor Ferguson and a coalition of 27 public and private partners in Washington state filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a legal challenge to block the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs. Members of the coalition have “borne the consequences of President Trump’s unlawful tariffs and disregard for separation of powers,” the brief states, including increased costs for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and lost revenues across industries.
It continues: “These tariffs have undermined the state’s economic well-being and severely disrupted key sectors of Washington’s economy, including agriculture, manufacturing, and technology, resulting in higher costs for consumers and businesses, and reduced competitiveness in global markets.”
The brief also states the sweeping tariffs unilaterally imposed by the President “undermine the bedrock principles” upon which the country was founded.
In filing the amicus with the U.S. Supreme Court, Ferguson was joined by State Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti; 10 state legislators; the mayors of Seattle and Spokane; five labor unions; the Washington Economic Development Association, a trade association whose members include Washington-based economic development organizations, cities, counties, ports, tribes, businesses, education and community-based organizations; and other business and economic development interests.
The Attorney General’s Office appointed attorneys Steven Fogg and Kathryn Joy of Corr Cronin LLP as special assistant attorneys general to handle the brief pro bono, at no cost to the state.
This was the second amicus brief filed by Ferguson and the coalition of state and local officials, state legislators, labor unions, and businesses.
In May, the coalition filed a brief making similar arguments in the trial court.
Both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have struck down Trump’s illegal tariffs. Today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision.
Article I of the Constitution vests Congress, not the President, with the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Trump’s executive orders cite the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but that law applies only when an emergency presents an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad and does not empower the president to impose tariffs. Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977. No other president has imposed tariffs based on IEEPA.
In its majority opinion striking down these unlawful tariffs, the Supreme Court directly cited Article 1 underscoring the powers of the legislative branch. The Chief Justice wrote: “It is no accident that this power appears first.”
President Trump’s executive orders announced higher tariffs on virtually every nation in the world. Prior to this decision, these included a 35 percent tariff on many imports from Canada, a 25 percent tariff on many products from Mexico, and a blanket tariff of 10 percent on most products from much of the rest of the world.
In all, Washington companies shipped $57.8 billion worth of goods to the world in 2024. Nearly $120 billion in exports and imports flowed through Washington state ports in 2024. As of 2022, Washington goods exports supported an estimated 160,000 jobs across the state, almost 18 percent above the national average.
Impacts of the tariffs are already proving significant. In September 2025, the state Office of Financial Management released what is believed to be the first statewide, nonpartisan report on the potential effects of tariffs. It found that fully implementing Trump’s tariffs could cost Washington $2.2 billion in general fund revenue over the next four years. Quarterly state GDP growth is also expected to slow by 1.2 to 1.8 percentage points through 2029.
OLYMPIA – Governor Bob Ferguson issued the following statement today on the Supreme Court’s decision to block the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs:
“Washington is one of the most trade-dependent states in the nation. Research has shown that American companies and consumers are bearing 90 percent of the economic burden of President Trump’s tariffs. That’s why I led a coalition of more than two dozen public and private partners to tell Washington’s story to the Supreme Court. The court agreed with us, and struck down the President’s harmful and illegal tariffs.
“I will always stand up for Washington families, workers and businesses.”
In the 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump could not invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to set tariffs on imports.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said: “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
In October, Governor Ferguson and a coalition of 27 public and private partners in Washington state filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a legal challenge to block the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs. Members of the coalition have “borne the consequences of President Trump’s unlawful tariffs and disregard for separation of powers,” the brief states, including increased costs for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and lost revenues across industries.
It continues: “These tariffs have undermined the state’s economic well-being and severely disrupted key sectors of Washington’s economy, including agriculture, manufacturing, and technology, resulting in higher costs for consumers and businesses, and reduced competitiveness in global markets.”
The brief also states the sweeping tariffs unilaterally imposed by the President “undermine the bedrock principles” upon which the country was founded.
In filing the amicus with the U.S. Supreme Court, Ferguson was joined by State Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti; 10 state legislators; the mayors of Seattle and Spokane; five labor unions; the Washington Economic Development Association, a trade association whose members include Washington-based economic development organizations, cities, counties, ports, tribes, businesses, education and community-based organizations; and other business and economic development interests.
The Attorney General’s Office appointed attorneys Steven Fogg and Kathryn Joy of Corr Cronin LLP as special assistant attorneys general to handle the brief pro bono, at no cost to the state.
This was the second amicus brief filed by Ferguson and the coalition of state and local officials, state legislators, labor unions, and businesses.
In May, the coalition filed a brief making similar arguments in the trial court.
Both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have struck down Trump’s illegal tariffs. Today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision.
Article I of the Constitution vests Congress, not the President, with the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Trump’s executive orders cite the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but that law applies only when an emergency presents an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad and does not empower the president to impose tariffs. Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977. No other president has imposed tariffs based on IEEPA.
In its majority opinion striking down these unlawful tariffs, the Supreme Court directly cited Article 1 underscoring the powers of the legislative branch. The Chief Justice wrote: “It is no accident that this power appears first.”
President Trump’s executive orders announced higher tariffs on virtually every nation in the world. Prior to this decision, these included a 35 percent tariff on many imports from Canada, a 25 percent tariff on many products from Mexico, and a blanket tariff of 10 percent on most products from much of the rest of the world.
In all, Washington companies shipped $57.8 billion worth of goods to the world in 2024. Nearly $120 billion in exports and imports flowed through Washington state ports in 2024. As of 2022, Washington goods exports supported an estimated 160,000 jobs across the state, almost 18 percent above the national average.
Impacts of the tariffs are already proving significant. In September 2025, the state Office of Financial Management released what is believed to be the first statewide, nonpartisan report on the potential effects of tariffs. It found that fully implementing Trump’s tariffs could cost Washington $2.2 billion in general fund revenue over the next four years. Quarterly state GDP growth is also expected to slow by 1.2 to 1.8 percentage points through 2029.
-
Rideback
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact: