United States trade court rules against Trump's 10 per cent tariff rate

Why’d they pass him then

Dumbest *goddamned* student. Extra emphasis

Hey, some people take have to use loan daddy!

He didn’t go to business school (ie MBA). He has an undergraduate degree from UPenn in finance.

No but similarly, albeit not related, the nationwide injunctions being curtailed and made to have classaction suits in district courts to stop them nationwide is definitely one of them. Like you said though, they are not collecting tariffs on the specific reciprocal tariffs and some are still legal until they are brought before the courts so this has little to do with SCOTUS or the SCOTUS-6. Problem is Trump is using the DoJ like he would his own attorneys, reputation be damned and will fight every ruling whether legitimate or not. He wasnt known for being one of the most vexatious litigants of all time for nothing. I even just read that he is having the DoJ try and go after his r***/defamation suit he lost by having Blanche claim its not Trump but under the US government which if in some insane move by SCOTUS (doubtful even here) it would void the $85Mil judgement as you cant sue the Federal government. Its insane what Republicans are allowing Trump to get away with and Abuse of Power for the Executive does not exist anymore.

Their ruling you are referring to was against tariffs over 15%, which were not empowered under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that trump tried to use for his other higher tariffs. That ruling was enforced nationwide by the Supreme Court and as a result he had to lower them to 10%. The ruling did not include the lower 10% tariffs referenced here as illegal at that time because they complied with the IEEPA limit. This new ruling was not by the Supreme Court, but by a Federal Judge...who had to obey another/different ruling by the Supreme Court. What I'm talking about is the Supreme Court ruling that said a Federal Judge could not apply an injunction across the United States and that it must narrowly be applied to the parties with standing, who brought the suit. Thats an over-simplification of it, but that gets to the heart of the issue. It was decided in United States v. Texas (2023) and Labrador v. Poe (2024). I presume that is why although the 10% tariff was shown to be collected illegally, they could not issue an injunction across the nation. Every person/company with standing has to bring their own case, participate in a class action across the nation, or bring it to the Supreme Court for the injunction to be applied. That's what I meant by them messing up the judicial system. Before this ruling, Federal judges could rule on violations of the law and issue injunctions against presidential policies and orders that applied to the whole United States. The Supreme Court holds full responsibility for removing that power from Federal Judges and thus responsible here in the inability for this to apply outside the parties who sued.

That and when they get overruled in the future they get the money back. it's legit just increasing their bottom line.

They are talking about the litigation from this particular set of tariffs. The court in this case struck down the additional tariffs that he implemented after the SCOTUS tariffs were struck down. However, unlike the SCOTUS tariffs which was a nation wide ruling, these tariffs were not struck down as a nation wide ruling, but rather only applies to the three plaintiffs named on the suit (the state of Washington and two businesses). Other states will have to bring their own suit to litigate in their jurisdiction and under their case.

That was my thought too