Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(138,414 posts)
Mon Jun 15, 2026, 01:13 PM 4 hrs ago

Supreme Court won't hear tariff challenge, paving way for new Trump action

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 15 declined to hear from businesses challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on China, which he imposed in 2018 under a different law than the emergency duties the high court struck down in February.

The justices' decision not to review a ruling upholding those tariffs could embolden the administration as it seeks to replace many of the emergency tariffs Trump tried to impose last year.

And it leaves in place import fees that companies opposed to the tariffs said are costing American consumers nearly $75 billion a year.

At issue were some of the tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration on imports from China under the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the United States to take action against another country's unfair trade practices.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/supreme-court-wont-hear-tariff-133326197.html



Did someone buy Thomas a new RV?
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court won't hear tariff challenge, paving way for new Trump action (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin 4 hrs ago OP
Maybe they gave him a cooler full of hairy Coke cans, I hear he likes those... wcmagumba 4 hrs ago #1
Completely expected result, upholding Obama judges decision. onenote 3 hrs ago #2
Thank you GenThePerservering 2 hrs ago #3
FFS pat_k 2 hrs ago #4
Right. Can you believe those give Obama judges? onenote 6 min ago #8
Thanks for straightening me out. pat_k 1 min ago #9
No need -- Thomas is an honest Republican; he *stays* bought. nt eppur_se_muova 1 hr ago #5
but the RV Quanto Magnus 1 hr ago #6
If anyone thinks this is going to spur reshoring, they need to get off the sauce. paleotn 10 min ago #7

onenote

(46,322 posts)
2. Completely expected result, upholding Obama judges decision.
Mon Jun 15, 2026, 02:06 PM
3 hrs ago

It's easy to knee jerk react to every decision as somehow the result of Thomas being bribed. But the background on this case undercuts that argument. It would only take four justices agreeing to hear the case to grant cert. Not only were there not four such votes, none of the Democrats on the Court noted that they would grant the petition. Moreover, the decision below was a unanimous ruling by a three court panel made up of a GHWBush appointed judge and two Obama appointed judges. And before that, there was another three judge panel, all Obama appointees, that ruled in favor of the tariffs.

GenThePerservering

(3,965 posts)
3. Thank you
Mon Jun 15, 2026, 02:56 PM
2 hrs ago

you and a few others with your intelligent understanding cut through the general hysteria.

onenote

(46,322 posts)
8. Right. Can you believe those give Obama judges?
Mon Jun 15, 2026, 05:32 PM
6 min ago

What corrupt idiots they must be.

Sarcasm of course.

See post #2

Quanto Magnus

(1,406 posts)
6. but the RV
Mon Jun 15, 2026, 04:32 PM
1 hr ago

is over 5 years old, so it's clearly time to replace it.

Then he can double dip, by selling the 'old' RV for more than market value to someone who has business with the court. Win win!!

paleotn

(22,986 posts)
7. If anyone thinks this is going to spur reshoring, they need to get off the sauce.
Mon Jun 15, 2026, 05:28 PM
10 min ago

Donnie's dead or gone by 2029 and then it's back to business as usual. Long term supply chain and other economic concerns may drive some reshoring. Not the ravings of a senile old man. Simply put, we can have cheap or we can have onshore. We cannot have both. That math don't math.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court won't hear ...