In a significant ruling for importers, a federal judge in New York has determined that companies are entitled to refunds for tariffs previously struck down by the Supreme Court. The judge’s decision clarifies that all importers of record will benefit from the Supreme Court’s finding that President Trump’s sweeping import taxes were unconstitutional. This ruling could result in billions of dollars in refunds, and while the government is expected to appeal, the process for recalculating duties and issuing refunds has now begun.
Read More
This article, compiled by the independent Shopping Trends team, may generate affiliate commissions through provided links. The Shopping Trends team operates separately from CTV News journalists, ensuring an unbiased perspective on product recommendations. Shoppers can utilize these links for purchasing items while understanding the team’s potential for earning through these transactions.
Read More
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Trump administration exceeded its authority by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), FedEx has filed a lawsuit seeking a full refund of all tariffs it paid. The global logistics company argues that it imported goods subject to these duties and consequently suffered financial injury. This action by FedEx marks a significant corporate response to the Supreme Court’s decision, with several other companies, including Costco, having also filed similar refund requests.
Read More
The European Parliament has halted the ratification of a significant trade deal with the United States due to “uncertainty” surrounding the U.S. commitment, following the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down most of President Trump’s tariffs. Lawmakers are seeking clarity on future U.S. trade policy and guarantees for the agreement’s implementation. This uncertainty, compounded by President Trump’s threats of further tariffs, has negatively impacted global markets. The stalled deal, intended to reduce trade barriers and modernize transatlantic relations, was already facing challenges due to previous U.S. tariff expansions and threats.
Read More
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of his global tariffs, President Trump enacted new levies under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. However, trade experts contend that this legal basis is also invalid, as the statute requires a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit, a condition the U.S. does not currently meet due to its flexible exchange rate and capital account surplus. This move is seen as a temporary measure while the administration initiates investigations under Section 301 and potentially considers tariffs under Section 232, creating continued trade uncertainty.
Read More
Oregon’s Attorney General contends that Americans are entitled to refunds due to Trump’s extensive tariffs, while simultaneously, the Trump administration’s immigration policies are described as increasingly severe, particularly in their impact on children. Democrats are actively campaigning to regain ground in traditionally Republican Texas, and Governor Beshear expresses optimism about flipping states in the upcoming midterm elections. Meanwhile, Trump plans to pursue new tariff strategies following a Supreme Court defeat and aims to implement voter ID reforms via executive order, sparking skepticism from some officials. Former second gentleman Doug Emhoff has criticized the Department of Justice, and a Representative is spearheading efforts to impeach Governor Noem.
Read More
It’s really quite striking to see that a substantial majority of Americans, a full 64%, reportedly disapprove of former President Trump’s tariffs. This figure suggests a widespread sentiment that these trade policies, at least in their implementation and impact, are not sitting well with the public. The sheer percentage of disapproval is a powerful indicator of how these measures are being perceived across the nation.
Digging a little deeper, the remaining 36% who either approve or remain silent on the issue present a fascinating, albeit concerning, picture. It’s hard not to wonder about the reasoning behind this minority’s stance. A significant portion of the commentary points towards a lack of understanding regarding how tariffs actually function.… Continue reading
Following a Supreme Court ruling that deemed his global tariffs unlawfully imposed, President Trump vowed to raise worldwide tariffs to 15 percent. He announced this intention via Truth Social, stating the increase would be effective immediately and bypass congressional approval. This move, framed as retribution for perceived unfair trade practices, utilizes the 1974 Trade Act, which carries limitations on duration and scope. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, denounced the tariffs as a tax on the American people.
Read More
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating his prior import duties, President Trump has signed a new executive order imposing a 10% “global tariff.” This new measure, effective immediately and lasting 150 days, utilizes Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, replacing tariffs previously enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). While some countries may see reduced tariff rates compared to prior agreements, the administration indicated that higher rates could be reinstated for specific nations as alternative legal pathways are explored. The President expressed strong disapproval of the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating he would continue to pursue tariffs without congressional involvement.
Read More
Despite Donald Trump’s consistent rejection of economic analyses, evidence accumulated over the course of his second term has definitively shown that American consumers are bearing the brunt of his trade tariffs. Nearly a year after the tariffs were implemented, multiple studies, including one by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Columbia University, found that approximately 90% of the economic burden fell on domestic firms and consumers, rather than foreign entities. This overwhelming consensus among economists and researchers has been met with dismissal from the White House, with a top advisor even suggesting disciplinary action for the authors of a critical Federal Reserve study.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood