Article 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and duties, and to "regulate commerce with

[lostincalifornia]

Foreign Nations.”

I have no confidence that THIS supreme court will follow the Constitution, and instead twist themselves into pretzels rationalizing that it is.

The big lie that keeps getting propagating by the liar in chef in the white house is how much money is being taken in by the tariffs, ignoring that it is the consumers and companies that are PAYING FOR THESE TARIFFS, and the media rarely mentions that fact.

Are the bulk of President Donald Trump’s tariffs unlawful? That question, now before the US Supreme Court, has spawned a hot new trade on Wall Street. Financial firms are buying the rights to refunds on tariffs paid by US importers on the expectation that the court will strike down the levies and set the stage for companies to be reimbursed.

US companies have paid more than $100 billion in import taxes since Trump set his tariff policy in motion earlier this year. But courts have been skeptical that the president has the authority to impose his sweeping tariffs under the law he is invoking, the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).

Some investors are betting that the Supreme Court will not only strike down the tariffs but also clear the way for importers to seek refunds from the government on duties they already paid. That’s where Wall Street sees a potential profit: Financial firms are offering to immediately reimburse importers for the tariffs they have paid, minus a percentage that firms keep for themselves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-18/how-betting-on-tariff-refunds-became-a-hot-trade-on-wall-street?itm_source=record&itm_campaign=Trump%E2%80%99s_Tariffs&itm_content=Tariff_Refund_Bets-3

[Igel]

1. Yeah, that it did.

But Congress has been known to delegate some authority. And that's the claim that's being made. The question is whether Congress did delegate such broad authority to impose tariffs.

As for quibbling with Congress, under Obama there was a pipeline from Canada that Obama's admin was not going to approve. Congress went into a minor uproar and there was a bit of a public battle: Congress pointing to specifically that bit of the Constitution, and Obama arguing that Congress had abandoned that responsibility for so long, leaving it up to the administration with little guidance, that it had effectively disowned that authority.

It was an interesting use of estoppel (in my imperfect lay understanding of it).

[lostincalifornia]

2. Except they are using that this is an emergency to justify it, when there was no emergency. The emergency is that we

have a deranged power hungry megalomaniac in the white house, who wants to take over things that should be in the realm of the Congress, and Congress passively sits there and for the most part does nothing. I am not sure why Congress even bothers to come to Washington and actually do their job. Congress has ceded power to the executive branch on issues such as the war powers, trade, agency oversight, and budgetary matters, that the theory of unitary executive theory, is no longer a "theory".

[dutch777]

3. Until Congress gets a spine (a new Dem majority) they are letting everything fall into Trump's purview.

It's been so long it is hard to remember when Congress actually did it's whole job as defined by the Constitution. Somehow there used to be regular budgets on time that weren't just a continuing resolution, temporary, partial and/or band aid. It is laughable that Trump wants to re-shore manufacturing to America but the kind of planning and greasing of the wheels to make that a likely and near term possibility would take thoughtful action by Congress. Of course all that should have come before any notion of tariffs but that would imply someone had a plan that was not just a knee jerk reaction.