Following the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Trump’s “Liberation Day” duties, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker demanded over $8.6 billion in damages, citing economic harm to farmers and increased grocery prices. The governor sought a $1,700 refund for every Illinois household, asserting that families bore the brunt of these “illegal tariffs.” A White House spokesperson dismissed the demand, suggesting Pritzker address his state’s own high taxes. In response to the ruling, President Trump announced the initiation of a 10% global tariff under a different act, vowing to maintain other tariffs and investigate unfair trade practices.
Read More
In a significant blow to executive authority, the Supreme Court has ruled President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs fundamentally illegal. The decision invalidates tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for balance of payments and drug trafficking emergencies, impacting billions in accumulated revenue. This ruling forces a shift away from the administration’s previous negotiating leverage, as future tariff impositions will be significantly more restricted and time-consuming. The Treasury now faces the daunting prospect of issuing approximately $120 billion in refunds to importers.
Read More
President Trump reportedly became enraged during a governors’ breakfast upon learning the Supreme Court had struck down his global tariffs, calling the decision a “disgrace” and exclaiming, “these fucking courts.” The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing these broad tariffs, a significant setback for his presidential powers. This ruling, delivered by a bench including conservative justices Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett, casts doubt on approximately $200 billion in collected tariffs, potentially leading to refund requests from companies.
Read More
The idea of imposing a 10% global tariff under a different authority is a significant point of discussion, particularly given past legal challenges and pronouncements. The core of this concept revolves around finding new avenues or justifications to enact such a trade policy. It’s like trying to find a loophole or a different door when one has been closed.
The discussion often centers on the President’s authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. Historically, tariffs are seen as a form of taxation, and under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the power to levy taxes. This fundamental principle is a recurring theme when discussing presidential actions on trade, leading to debates about the scope of executive power versus legislative prerogative.… Continue reading
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has determined that President Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The justices, in a 6-3 decision, found that the law, intended for national emergencies, does not grant the president the power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited scope. While this decision invalidates some of Trump’s tariffs, his ability to impose duties through other legal avenues remains unaffected. The ruling offers potential relief for businesses burdened by these tariffs and may pave the way for refund claims on unlawfully collected duties.
Read More
This article, compiled by the independent Shopping Trends team, aims to inform readers about emerging consumer habits and preferences. The team, distinct from CTV News journalists, may receive affiliate commissions through shopping links provided within the content. Their objective is to offer a clear and concise overview of current market dynamics, highlighting key trends without personal commentary.
Read More
A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has shed light on a truth many suspected all along: Americans are shouldering the vast majority of the costs associated with former President Trump’s tariffs. It turns out that approximately 90% of these tariffs are ultimately paid for by consumers here in the United States. This is a revelation that, while perhaps shocking to some, aligns precisely with how economists have long understood the mechanics of tariffs. When a country imposes taxes on imported goods, those costs don’t simply vanish into thin air. Instead, they are typically passed on down the line, from the importer to the retailer, and ultimately to the end consumer.… Continue reading
The House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, marking a significant Republican rebuke of his economic policy. This vote, which saw several Republicans join Democrats, occurred despite President Trump’s warnings of electoral consequences for those who opposed him. The resolution’s passage highlights the deep unpopularity of the tariffs in certain districts, even leading some Republicans to vote against the president on principle.
Read More
It seems quite remarkable, and frankly, disheartening, to learn that the decision to increase tariffs on Swiss goods was reportedly driven by a personal dislike of how a leader spoke during a phone call. The implication here is that a national economic policy, one that affects American consumers and businesses, was seemingly enacted not for strategic trade reasons, but due to a bruised ego or an unfavorable impression of someone’s conversational style. This raises significant questions about the rational basis for such actions, especially when emergency powers are involved, powers that are supposed to be reserved for genuine national security threats.… Continue reading
Despite a January 2024 letter, highlighted by Eleanor Mueller of Semafor, that clearly states tariffs are inflationary and would strengthen the dollar, a key figure claimed such a document did not exist. In the letter, it was argued that Donald Trump’s intention to weaken the dollar was to foster US manufacturing competitiveness. Attempts were made to dismiss this conflicting evidence, with a subsequent assertion that any prior statement regarding tariffs being inflationary was mistaken, all while the average American continues to bear the brunt of economic impacts from tariff policies.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood