Posted on 09/08/2025 7:24:05 AM PDT by Miami Rebel
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that he is “confident” that President Donald Trump’s tariff plan “will win” at the Supreme Court, but warned his agency would be forced to issue massive refunds if the high court rules against it.
If the tariffs are struck down, he said, “we would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” according to an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
He added, however, that “if the court says it, we’d have to do it.”
The Trump administration last week asked the Supreme Court for an “expedited ruling” to overturn an appeals court decision that found most of his tariffs on imports from other countries are illegal.
Generally, the Supreme Court could take as long as early next summer to issue a decision on the legality of Trump’s tariffs.
Bessent has said that “delaying a ruling until June 2026 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion in tariffs have already been collected, and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.”
The prospect of the government having to refund tariffs of that magnitude could mean an unprecedented windfall to the businesses and entities that paid them.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last month that Trump overstepped his presidential authority when he introduced “reciprocal tariffs” on almost every country as part of his “liberation day” announcement.
The appeals court paused its ruling from taking effect until Oct. 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Trump has requested that the Supreme Court hear arguments on his appeal in early November and issue a final decision on the legality of the disputed tariffs soon thereafter, according to filings obtained by NBC News from the plaintiffs in the case.
Before court action, Trump’s tariffs were set to affect nearly 70% of U.S. goods imports, according to the Tax Foundation. If struck down, the duties would impact just roughly 16%.
However, while Bessent and others have expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor, the administration is working on backup plans in case it does not.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Sunday that there are “other legal authorities” that the administration could take if Trump’s tariffs are blocked.
“There are other things that could happen should it go that way,” Hassett said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” if the tariffs are overturned. Some of those efforts could include implementing tariffs through Section 232, or sector-specific levies.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the president to implement levies “so that such imports will not so threaten to impair the national security,” following an investigation into trade practices, NBC News reports.
For example, the Trump administration in August expanded its 50% steel and aluminum tariffs to include more than 400 additional product categories, according to the Department of Commerce. Trump has also threatened to impose steep tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
Other levies that would not be affected by Trump’s court battle are those on low-cost items. The administration officially eliminated the “de minimis exemption” on U.S.-bound goods valued at $800 or less.
On Saturday, the Universal Postal Union, an agency of the United Nations, said postal traffic into the U.S. plummeted by more than 80% after the Trump administration ended the tariff exemption on cheap imports as postal operators looked for guidance on compliance with the new rules.
“the courts have been tempering presidential and congressional indicatives since the beginning of the Republic”
***********
That’s true but are we really a republic (i.e., political power rests with the public) when the courts wield disproportionate power and right now are effectively running the country with sweeping nationwide injunctions, politically influenced decisions, excessive criminal leniency, usurpation of executive authority, and legislating from the bench? Abuses by one branch cannot be justified to prevent abuses by the other two branches of government. I think we’re a long ways away from the system of checks and balances that the Founders had in mind. JMHO
If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, that would mean that the tariffs were inappropriately (does that sound better than “illegally”?) garnered.
How that = globalism I’ll leave to you to explain.
(As was posited in another post, IF the USSC rules against the Administration, Congress could the enact the tariffs into law, thereby finessing the constitutional issue.)
The Courts have been attacked since their inception by various administrations. FDR had one of the most sweeping mandates in U.S. history, yet the Supreme Court repeatedly voided his initiatives.
No, but I voted for the current President, who campaigned on said measures. I knew what his plan was prior to casting my vote for him. President Trump is just delivering on his campaign promises. And I would guess any change to tariffs coming from congress is subject to the 60 vote cloture Senate rules and as such will die on the vine there. So, I support the President’s attempt to accomplish what the do-nothing Congress won’t.
“The Courts have been attacked since their inception by various administrations.”
*************
Which says a lot in itself. One would think that things might balance out but the net result over the years has been the relentless growth of federal power. And its a truism that as government gets bigger, the people become smaller. Again, not what the Founders had in mind.
Eventually the Supreme Court may become too powerful if Congress/POTUS fails to check it.
Did you ever vote for (or against) a tariff?
***********
Disingenuous question. We don’t vote directly on issues but rather for people who run on stated policies, principles and vision for the country. Come on now, you know that.
Precisely right.
That’s exactly what the Bidenistas said during the last administration.
Timing is everything.Sep 30th the Gov shuts down if they don’t tackle the budget bill.
That sounds like a WARNING? It sounds like he's preparing (or is that PrEP?) for bottoming, yet again.
It's baffling how something so fundamental to constitutional law is a mystery to so many people here on THIS website.
But this shouldn't be a surprise to me. I learned long ago that too many so-called "constitutional conservatives" forget all about this until it's a DEMOCRAT in the White House trying to usurp the role of Congress.
Then go take the matter up with your elected representatives in Congress.
What's the point of electing a Congress if the President can do whatever he wants? If SCOTUS rules against the President on this case, that will be reason.
If Congress can delegate total power to the President, the checks and balances built into the Constitution are destroyed because legislation will no longer have to go through Congress. The scope of what Trump claims he can do with tariffs amounts to a complete delegation of that power.
If Trump wants to fundamentally change the tariff posture of the country, he should go to Congress and request the implementation of those tariffs via legislation. And if Congress won't do that, well, that's the way our system works.
I don't think it's a mystery to those people. They don't care if someone is Constitutional or not as long as they like the result.
Exactly.
As to the argument that “Trump can do it because Congress delegated that power to him”, I wonder how we’d like it if a Democrat Congress delegated to the President the power to adjust income tax rates as he saw fit.
“If Trump wants to fundamentally change the tariff posture of the country, he should go to Congress and request the implementation of those tariffs via legislation.”
***************
Oh yeah, go to the congress that can’t even pass a budget. Tariffs are so complex that there’s zero chance of congress coming up with any kind of workable tariff system for one country, much less the entire world. Get real.
Whether or not Congress can handle tariffs the way you think they need to be handled is irrelevant. It's what the Constitution says that matters.
Don't like the Constitution, amend it.
“It’s what the Constitution says that matters.”
*************
No, its how the Constitution is interpreted by the courts that matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.