872
So they are going to pay it back right?……….Right?
There are already lawsuits filed for refunds of tariff payments. Of course the money will go to the companies that made the payments. All of us who actually paid them by paying more for basically every consumer good are out of luck.
Wealth transfer from labor to the ownership class.
Sounds like the system is working as intended.
Yup. This is exactly what these tariffs did.
This was the highest tax increase on the American people in decades. And MAGA idiots cheered the entire time they lost money. Fuck all of them.
Companies that made the payments already sold their rights to this refunds to investment funds for cents on the dollar. Now the funds will make shitload of money. And guess who invested in all of it? Yes, people connected to Trump!
https://www.wired.com/story/cantor-fitzgerald-trump-tariff-refunds/
They straight out robbed everyone.
Lmfao of course they had something like this set up
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Yeah, it is kind of like seeing you car that was stolen on the news being returned to the person who resold it from the person who stole your car.
Justice!
Hah! It gets better than that.
We are going to have to pay again in taxes to make up for the new shortfall.
And people are delusional if they think these prices will go back down.
Really excited for the Transparent Wealth Transfer Act of 2026.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yeah of course, now the big importing companies get billions of dollars... oh you meant to the consumer, tough luck.
A trump never pays his debts
There's always the chance Costco gives its customers something. They have records of everything purchased by members. Every other company, I wouldn't hold my breath. These tariffs have cost companies a lot in paperwork as well.
Maybe commercial clients who have bought something really substantial will get something refunded.
That's all if Trump's government complies, which he's previously said it wouldn't. He'll make another excuse or appeal it until he's gone, making it someone else's problem.
load more comments
(4 replies)
So let me get this straight, the companies that raised their prices based on Trump's tariffs get to apply for a refund with no requirement to lower prices and pass that refund on to the consumers who actually had to pony up the money at the 'cash register' every day. Once again, corporations get an undeserved bailout while the American consumer gets shafted. Typical.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Too little too late supreme court. There's no one left to enforce the decision.
This was planned. Blitzkrieg policies are working as intended.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Important to note that the ruling just says Trump exceeded his authority in setting the tariffs, not that the tariffs themselves were illegal/unconstitutional. That means that Congress can authorize Trump to continue doing this. The question is whether Mike Johnson and John Thune have the numbers to pass that law. They already both quashed efforts to curb Trump's authority before.
I'm not too worried about additional tariffs passing through congress, though. That would have been the safer approach to try from the beginning if Trump's people thought they could make it work. They opted for this workaround loophole nonsense specifically to go around congress because they had already ruled out the possibility of congressional approval.
I just don't think Trump could ever manage to get enough support from congress. Certainly not with how unpopular the tariffs currently are, and certainly not right before the midterms.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Any other ruling wouldn't have made sense. The issue was not about if tariffs are legal, but rather if the President has the authority to unilaterally set them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Another illegal {insert thing here}?
Oh, wow, is it time to arrest and charge?
Or, will you do nothing just like the 7456 times the fat cunt broke your laws in the last year and you did fuck all?
An illegal executive order isn't a crime, it just doesn't count.
load more comments
(6 replies)
At his White House news conference, Trump announced alternative options, including an immediate 10% global tariff.
Lol, the US is a clown show.
Not a serious country. Just a pedo haven for reality tv stars.
I mean, as much of a fucking mess this is going to cause, and as much as they should have said this a year ago, this is still very good news as far as I am concerned. Bare minimum, all the tarriffs currently in place by Trump are canceled going forward and it's going to be a while before anything analogous can be put back into place.
It's not all the tariffs, just the ones he justified using the 1977 Emergency Act. So of course, now he'll use another justification, and it'll take SC(R)OTUS another year to rule on those.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It’s a good thing first and foremost because tariffs have been Trump’s #1 tool to bully other nations into bending to his will.
If this was the fastest they could rule an executive action unconstitutional, it's proof they need to adjust the process so they can do it faster.
Not that I think this Supreme Court is acting in good faith.
Incorrect.
Only a subset of tariffs were ruled illegal. Mostly because of the method they were declared with.
Others are, as of now, perfectly legal and will remain in place. And expect many of these to just be declared in a different manner to maintain them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm shocked! SHOCKED I tell you!
I am. Sincerely, I'm shocked. This is quite the surprise.
It's not the 6-3 ruling I expected at all. Was fully thinking would be 6-3 that it was okay for him to do it not saying he can't
I mean it's such an incredibly unambiguous 9-0 on a legal basis and he still got three nonetheless.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Understand that this is SCOTUS believing they're helping Trump by removing the unpopular tariffs while handing out huge amounts of cash in an election year
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
“They have made their ruling, now let us see them enforce it.”
Now several companies will sue my government for damages.
yaaaaay
Ooh boy, refunds! Yay!
We should make sure to refund all the corporations and businesses - by court order! If we do that, surely it will trickle down this time.
Whoa.
Well, I bet my pants that Justice Clarence Thomas is a dissenting opinion. Does it say in the article?
There's only one way to find out: ask people what's in the article.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined with Roberts and the three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
I just wanted to guess before I read it.
Can something so certain legitimately be called a guess anymore?
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's always the ones you most suspect. You could probably be closely aligned with the constitution without knowing a single thing about the law by just always taking the opposite position from whatever Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh take.
I can't remember what it was about, but I think Kavanaugh was actually on the correct side of a non-unanimous ruling maybe once.
Literally zero times for the other two, of course.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
It doesn't matter. Remember all those times when Trump & Co set a tariff percentage, then lowered it a few weeks later? I wonder why? Maybe somebody made a "donation" to his bitcoin account. He got what he wanted.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So the Supreme Court finally found out what we all already knew?
But a few of them clearly still haven't gotten the memo?
I mean I'm trying to be happy about this news, but it's kind of just more proof how pathetic and corrupt our SC is.
An actual useful court should've made this ruling on day 1
As if that'll stop the orange nonce.
While him and his enablers suffer no consequences then he is defacto above the law
He came back with another one.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/20/us/trump-tariffs-supreme-court
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
872 points (99.2% liked)
World News
54786 readers
3257 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS