Latest stories

The mounting case against Donald Trump's tariffs

China intentionally spreads authoritarian practices abroad

China's bet on self-reliance won't fix an unbalanced economy

Justice Elena Kagan, a Democratic appointee, seemed to sum up the case when she quipped that the IEEPA“has a lot of verbs... It just doesn't have the one you want.”

In short, whether such an ambiguous phrase could confer such sweeping powers was sharply questioned by justices on both sides of politics.

Tariff refund discussions

The fact that the Supreme Court went on to consider the question of remedies for potentially striking down the tariffs is also a telling sign. Specifically, Justice Barrett asked how the process for issuing refunds for the potentially illegally collected tariffs would work.

Counsel for the plaintiffs explained that the five businesses that brought the action against Trump's tariffs would be reimbursed first.

As to the imports from the rest of the world, given the case was not a class action, the process would be“a very complicated thing.” As the lawyers for the businesses elaborated on what the refund process might look like, Justice Barrett interjected with the summation:“So, a mess.”

Counsel for the businesses noted there may be legal precedent for the court to limit its decision to“prospective relief.” This means the Supreme Court's decision would only affect tariffs collected after the court's judgment, with no effect on tariffs collected before it.

If this legal precedent were to be followed, refunds would not be issued for tariffs collected before the Supreme Court decision (except for the five businesses that brought the case). The court did not pass any comment on the likelihood of following such a precedent.

Regardless of how the refunds might be issued, it is clear they would result in economic and political upheaval, both for the US and exporters from around the world.

Nonetheless, counsel for the businesses noted the Supreme Court had previously said in a case from 1990,“a serious economic dislocation” was not a reason not to do something. In other words, the fact that the reimbursement process would be difficult to administer should not be a block to the Supreme Court ruling that the tariffs are illegal.

When will the justices rule?

The court agreed to hear the case on an“expedited” basis, but has not set a date for when it will rule. Betting markets were swift to react, though, with traders marking down the chances of the court ruling in Trump's favor to 30% after the hearing, from nearly 50% before.

Never one for understatement, Trump has said,“I think it's the most important decision... in the history of our country.”