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.
Then maybe they shouldn’t be adopted at all — right?
I’m a big fan of tariffs in principle, but it’s stupid to put tariff policy in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. And it’s is becoming clear that putting it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in the Trump administration who are financiers who have never been involved in manufacturing or farming a single product or commodity in their lives is beyond retarded.
If a U.S. court interprets that to mean that the President can unilaterally impose tariffs on his own, then your constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
SCOTUS will not uphold this activist judges ruling. The Trade Act of 1974 gives POTUS the power to do this. You are siding with judicial activism and in better days you would have been zotted long ago.
Albertas brain dead child doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.
The Tariff Act of 1974 gives POTUS the power. But you knew that.
Does the big bill have revenues from tariffs included in the budget.
Wouldn’t that be congressional approval?
Its not always practical to have 535 people trying to manage something. And so some things do get deferred. Expecting absolute Constitutional conformance is simply not how things really work.
The court “decides” whether or not the action followed the law.
If the executive is not following the law, then thats it.
If you don’t like the law, you don’t get angry at the court. You get angry at Congress.
And…the Congress (Senate side) decides who becomes Federal judges.
YOU decide who is in Congress, every two years. If you don’t like the laws of the people they approve of…do something about it next November.
So you are advocating just doing what you want, without regard for following the law?
And you call the Dem’s anarchists?
If we don’t like the rules, we need a Congress that can change the rules. Instead we send morons and pigs to DC. And we wonder why stuff doesn’t get done.
I think you’re on the wrong website, dude.
You’re not the site moderator and I don’t care what you think.
I mean — you’re free to stay here and post to your heart’s content. But what you’ve said here is so outlandish I think it belongs in an instruction book for the European Union.
“you’re free to stay here and post to your heart’s content.”
***********
Oh thank you so much for your permission and forbearance. You’re entirely too kind. I should tell Jim Rob how appreciative I am.
“If you don’t like the law, you don’t get angry at the court. You get angry at Congress.”
************
I get what you’re saying but at the same time your post implies that we should passively accept these decisions, to which I say its hard not to get angry about usurpation and the clear politization of justice. Some judges deserve opprobrium in the absence of a timely correction or replacement. Malfeasance should always be exposed and called out whenever and wherever it exists.
LOL. You’re very welcome.
You laugh at your own arrogance. Interesting.
It’s not often I have to look up a word.
Chat GPT is still verbose. They have settings for that.
No arrogance at all. You made it sound like I was trying to ban you from this site, which was absolutely not the case. :-P
Grow up and knock it off.
Where are the deficit hawks?
*******************************
They’re probably bitching about tariffs, reading the WSJ, & trying to blow up the international oil markets.
“All for the love of their dear little girl.”(Ukraine)
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.