Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(167,908 posts) Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:16 PM 7 hrs ago

Lawyer in SCOTUS case against Trump's tariffs says his clients want a refund

Source: NPR

Updated February 23, 2026 1:48 PM ET

Neal Katyal, one of the attorneys who argued on behalf of plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case against Trump's tariffs, told Morning Edition that his clients want a refund from the federal government.

"There's a pretty commonsense principle, which is if you've collected a bunch of money illegally and the court says it's illegal, then you've got to give it back," Katyal said. "It's not a finders keepers rule in this country. We have a system of justice."

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's sweeping use of emergency powers to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The 6-3 ruling is a major setback for the president's economic policy agenda. The next day, Trump announced in a social media post that he would raise global tariffs from 10% to 15% under a different law.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/23/nx-s1-5722862/neal-katyal-supreme-court-trump-tariffs-illegal

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lawyer in SCOTUS case against Trump's tariffs says his clients want a refund (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 7 hrs ago OP

They should only be able to recover actual losses when weighed against what their profits were. cstanleytech 7 hrs ago #1

the tarrif expense should be passed on RainCaster 7 hrs ago #2

That's essentially what I an saying. cstanleytech 7 hrs ago #5

How about consumers' grocery bills? bucolic_frolic 7 hrs ago #3

And companies aren't likely to lower the prices either they know they can gouge the public. cstanleytech 7 hrs ago #6

Corporations, big and small businesses, big and small farms, etc........................... Lovie777 7 hrs ago #4

I saw a columm from Barron's yesterday which I can't find now saying doc03 7 hrs ago #7

"I saw a columm from Barron's yesterday which I can't find now" BumRushDaShow 6 hrs ago #8

That looks like it. To me it looks like they doc03 3 hrs ago #9

cstanleytech

(28,355 posts)

1. They should only be able to recover actual losses when weighed against what their profits were.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:19 PM

7 hrs ago

In other words if they raised prices and made the same amount or more profit than they did last year percentage-wise then they should get zilch.

RainCaster

(13,557 posts)

2. the tarrif expense should be passed on

Reply to cstanleytech (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:21 PM

7 hrs ago

It's is really us at the bottom who have paid those taxes. Reimburse me!

cstanleytech

(28,355 posts)

5. That's essentially what I an saying.

Reply to RainCaster (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:24 PM

7 hrs ago

Monies should only be given to a company if it can prove that they lost money due to the tariffs but it should not be paid if they actually made the same amount or a larger amount of profit than they did the prior year before the tariffs. That way companies that raise prices to keep their profits up aren't essentially being given taxpayer money at that point for free.

bucolic_frolic

(54,721 posts)

3. How about consumers' grocery bills?

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:22 PM

7 hrs ago

Item after item ... coffee, chips, bananas, beef, beer .... all these prices went up after tariff increases.

cstanleytech

(28,355 posts)

6. And companies aren't likely to lower the prices either they know they can gouge the public.

Reply to bucolic_frolic (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:25 PM

7 hrs ago

Lovie777

(22,471 posts)

4. Corporations, big and small businesses, big and small farms, etc...........................

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:22 PM

7 hrs ago

and consumers all want refunds.

shithole says, no, it's all mine.

doc03

(38,978 posts)

7. I saw a columm from Barron's yesterday which I can't find now saying

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 05:36 PM

7 hrs ago

the loss of tariff income would blow a $2 trillion hole in the deficit over the next ten years.
They said the loss would require cuts in programs. But there was no mention about more tax on the rich.

BumRushDaShow

(167,908 posts)

8. "I saw a columm from Barron's yesterday which I can't find now"

Reply to doc03 (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 06:53 PM

6 hrs ago

This (looks like one of their "Live Updates" commentary thingies) -

3 days ago
Tariff Decision Cuts a $2 Trillion Hole in Deficit

By

Karishma Vanjani

The removal of tariff revenue could worsen the nation's budget shortfall by about $2 trillion over the next decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Tariff revenue in all of fiscal year 2025 was $195 billion; the government has collected $28 billion in tariffs since the fiscal year began in October. This revenue had been helping offset the federal deficit. The Supreme Court has now ruled that President Donald Trump's tariffs were invalid.

“We are in a dismal fiscal situation, and it just got worse. More than ever, we need Washington to put forward an agenda to truly address the debt,” the CRFB wrote.

But tariffs–which some critics argued were unlawful–aren't the only solution to the nation’s debt. Tax increases, military spending reductions and efforts to lower health care costs are among other potential options.

(snip)

doc03

(38,978 posts)

9. That looks like it. To me it looks like they

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 09:33 PM

3 hrs ago

were supporting the tariffs. I bet they never were concerned about the hole the BBB blew
in debt.

Reply to this discussion