Also, he issued new tarrifs today so those companies will just end up paying more to the government what a joke of a ruling by the SC

If I have a "tariff fee" tacked on to an order of piping can I sue the fed for reimbursement?

Winning. 232. 301. 122. 338.

Good use of Chestnut!!!

Great job calling this game, Stribling!!!

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

---

We're helping clients with refund claims now. We're pretty confident in the ability to get money back. May not be immediately paid, but clients will be getting paid interest on it anyway. Not paying them back is just going to more debt for the government.

---

Funny.

I hope you are not making any assurances to your clients about that.

Kudos to your confidence, if overly done and misplaced.

---

Right. The biggest companies in the world are just believing us without doing their own homework. I bet you also think the charitable donation at the register gives the business a tax deduction too, huh?

---

LOL good luck with that you are going to fail in epic fashion.


Even if you do it will be years of ligation and money spent on lawyers

---

I'm amazed at some of you who clearly have no idea how the real world works. Do you think F100 companies are hiring some idiot off the street who just hatched a harebrained scheme to defraud the government? Or do you think maybe they hired one of the firms most experienced in arguing with the government about taxes? Do you think everything immediately goes to litigation when you don't like the answer? Do you think we aren't at a comfort level that makes it pretty much a slam dunk argument or that we haven't already talked about it with people in the group handling this stuff for CBP?

You're welcome to keep making a fool of yourself, but there's a reason these claims are worth significantly more than 30% of face now. It's not because they got less likely to be paid, you dolt.

4stringAg said:

---

I'll be honest, I'm out of my depth a bit on the economics of tariffs and the various laws associated with them.

But my takeaway from today is that the "No Kings" protests are little more than hysterical ranting and raving and fearmongering. Seems our system of checks and balances is working as it should. Trump tested the boundaries of exec power and SCOTUS checked him. Seems we don't have a monarchy that the No Kings idiots claim.

---

Yeah...

This is how our system works, and now the administration will fulfill the edicts of this ruling and try another tack...



Gee....like they've done every single time.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

We will see what they try to do, but the White House did not spend a year relying on IEEPA for *most* of their tariffs and set up this political mess for themselves if there were quick, easy, and straightforward alternatives for all of their tariffs that would more clearly stand up in court.

(Unless they are simply incompetent )

---

Of course they did.

They were testing a political application of a presidential power to see how much it could be expanded.

Did you just wake up?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

---

The popularity of tariffs have little to no impact on their legality.

If 90% of the US populace was against tariffs, it might be a factor for the court. But, in a split issue like this, it is the law that matters.

Which is pretty much how the court ruled. The strongest argument is that IEEPA lists like 15 things that the POTUS can do in an emergency, and tariffs were not one of the things listed. If Congress wanted tariffs to be included, they would have included it in such an exhaustive list. That is a very sound legal argument that has a strong basis in original intent type analysis.

---

The unpopularity of tariffs is exactly why Congress won't be voting to extend his new tariffs in 150 days so that they're dead before midterm voting starts

---

While I don't like tariffs, this is a picture perfect ad for the Republicans...

Quote:

---

Trump was going to hand out a bunch of $2000 checks because of the tariffs...

But, the Democrats just voted tariffs down and now you won't get your money.

Republicans cared about you.

Democrats don't...

---

Ag with kids said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I'll be honest, I'm out of my depth a bit on the economics of tariffs and the various laws associated with them.

But my takeaway from today is that the "No Kings" protests are little more than hysterical ranting and raving and fearmongering. Seems our system of checks and balances is working as it should. Trump tested the boundaries of exec power and SCOTUS checked him. Seems we don't have a monarchy that the No Kings idiots claim.

---

Yeah...

This is how our system works, and now the administration will fulfill the edicts of this ruling and try another tack...



Gee....like they've done every single time.

---

No KaNgZ!!!1

Pinochet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

---

We're helping clients with refund claims now. We're pretty confident in the ability to get money back. May not be immediately paid, but clients will be getting paid interest on it anyway. Not paying them back is just going to more debt for the government.

---

Funny.

I hope you are not making any assurances to your clients about that.

Kudos to your confidence, if overly done and misplaced.

---

Right. The biggest companies in the world are just believing us without doing their own homework. I bet you also think the charitable donation at the register gives the business a tax deduction too, huh?

---

LOL good luck with that you are going to fail in epic fashion.


Even if you do it will be years of ligation and money spent on lawyers

---

I'm amazed at some of you who clearly have no idea how the real world works. Do you think F100 companies are hiring some idiot off the street who just hatched a harebrained scheme to defraud the government? Or do you think maybe they hired one of the firms most experienced in arguing with the government about taxes? Do you think everything immediately goes to litigation when you don't like the answer? Do you think we aren't at a comfort level that makes it pretty much a slam dunk argument or that we haven't already talked about it with people in the group handling this stuff for CBP?

You're welcome to keep making a fool of yourself, but there's a reason these claims are worth significantly more than 30% of face now. It's not because they got less likely to be paid, you dolt.

---

Yes F100 never make mistakes never go out business or have incompetent leadership or make bad decisions. Wake me up in 10 years when you still dont' have those refunds you dummy.

flown-the-coop said:

---

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

---

Let him believe his delusional really hope some on here really dont' have big leadership roles in their companies scary to think about.

SMM48 said:

---

Winning. 232. 301. 122. 338.

---

There will be more (add 201 at least):

Quote:

---

What's next. The President, as expected (and predicted by Justice Kavanaugh), will utilize existing statutory authorities to further his tariff policies as a "Plan B." This may include:

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 allows for temporary tariffs of up to 15% to address fundamental international payments problems. These tariffs expire after 150 days (June 20) unless they are extended by Congress. The United States does not currently have a fundamental international payments problem.

Section 201 tariffs. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the President to impose temporary "safeguard" tariffs to protect industries threatened with serious injury by imports following an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Section 301 tariffs. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 was the basis of President Trump's China tariffs during his first term. Section 301 requires an investigation by the Office of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) into potentially unfair foreign trade practices. A review of the tariffs conducted by USTR during the Biden Administration found that the Section 301 tariffs largely failed to achieve their goals.

Section 232 tariffs. Tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 can be used to restrict imports that threaten to impair U.S. national security following an investigation led by the Secretary of Commerce. President Trump earlier used Section 232 tariffs to address the national security threat allegedly posed by imports of kitchen cabinets.

Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 allows for tariffs of up to 50% on countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. Tariffs have never been imposed under Section 338, and some legal experts have questioned whether it may still be legally used to restrict imports.

Apart from these avenues, Congress may choose to impose tariffs or attempt to impose import licensing fees. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) today called on Congress to enact a reconciliation law codifying the existing tariffs.

---

Good thread, fwiw: these are more complicated regulations than we can necessarily digest/discuss on a message board imho, and while Trump is a very good communicator, he's not the type to get into the details either.

What’s next. The President, as expected (and predicted by Justice Kavanaugh), will utilize existing statutory authorities to further his tariff policies as a “Plan B.” This may include:

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 allows for temporary tariffs of up to 15%…

— Joe Bishop-Henchman 🗽💸⚖️🚆 (@jbhenchman) February 20, 2026