Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(163,346 posts) Thu Nov 6, 2025, 02:58 PM Nov 6

Trump's tariffs run into revenue problem at the Supreme Court

Source: msn/Axios

2h

The centerpiece of President Trump's economic agenda might be scrambled because of the billions it has generated for the U.S. government.

Why it matters: Trump and his top deputies have touted how they have improved the nation's fiscal position by raising billions from tariff revenue.

What's good for the deficit outlook might be a big problem for the policies' constitutionality, however.

The big picture: In oral arguments Wednesday, Supreme Court justices — including conservatives on the bench — questioned Trump's authority to unilaterally impose what were effectively taxes.

While Congress has delegated powers to the president to deal with foreign policy, Chief Justice John Roberts said "the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress."
"It's been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that's raising revenue domestically," Roberts said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law that underpins the lion's share of Trump-imposed tariffs allowed the outright ban of imports. "What it doesn't say is the president can raise revenue," Sotomayor said.

The other side: Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the government, said that the tariffs' primary purpose was to regulate foreign commerce, borrowing language from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

"These are regulatory tariffs, they are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental," Sauer said.

Except as the article notes later -

"His point of 'the tariffs would be most powerful without raising money' is hard when you have the president talking about all the money from the tariffs," says Shapiro

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump's tariffs run into revenue problem at the Supreme Court (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Nov 6 OP

It would still be a tax even if it didn't raise revenue. unblock Nov 6 #1

tRump's case collapses Bernardo de La Paz Nov 6 #2

I happen to be listening to the part of "The History of England" podcast that covers Charles I and tariffs muriel_volestrangler Nov 6 #3

Trump has spent his whole life cheating on his taxes. I think his love of tariffs is related. Lonestarblue Nov 6 #4

unblock

(55,788 posts)

1. It would still be a tax even if it didn't raise revenue.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Nov 6, 2025, 03:07 PM

Nov 6

Punitive taxes that are intended to discourage behavior rather than raise revenue are still taxes.

For example, there's a 10% tax on early withdrawal from retirement programs like iras and 401(k)s (with some exceptions). These are and would be taxes even if no one even withdrew funds early.

No one has ever argued that the tax on early withdrawal isn't a tax because it obviously is a tax.

Tariffs are taxes, plain and simple.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)

2. tRump's case collapses

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Nov 6, 2025, 03:11 PM

Nov 6

muriel_volestrangler

(105,212 posts)

3. I happen to be listening to the part of "The History of England" podcast that covers Charles I and tariffs

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Nov 6, 2025, 03:21 PM

Nov 6

The crisis of 1629-60 originated in Charles I's belief that by the royal prerogative he could govern without the advice and consent of Parliament.

This was matched by Parliament's insistence that it had a necessary role in Government, particularly in the granting of supply (tax income) to the Crown and in redressing the grievances of those ruled by the King.

Tonnage and poundage
Charles I came to the throne in March 1625. Throughout his reign (1625-49) he continued to collect customs duties, known as tonnage and poundage, by the royal prerogative. This continued even though Parliament had voted in 1625, against long-standing custom and precedent, that he could collect this revenue only for one year.

Charles I also tried to raise money without Parliament through a Forced Loan in 1626, and imprisoned without trial a number of those who refused to pay it.

The Petition of Right
As a precondition to granting any future taxes, in 1628 Parliament forced the King to assent to the Petition of Right. This asked for a settlement of Parliament's complaints against the King's non-parliamentary taxation and imprisonments without trial, plus the unlawfulness of martial law and forced billets. However, the King ensured that the Petition was enrolled in such a way that there would be doubts about its force as law: it was granted by his grace, rather than 'of right'.

Speaker held by Members
This and Charles's other high-handed acts in relation to the appointment of bishops, angered some less moderate Members in the Commons. On 10 March 1629 when the Speaker, Sir John Finch, tried to adjourn the House on the King's command, he was forcibly held down in his chair by three Members - Sir John Eliot, Denzil Holles and Benjamin Valentine - while the Commons passed a number of motions against the King's recent actions.

Speaker Finch said in justification of his actions: "I am none less the King's servant for being yours." This illustrated the dilemma which moderate Members in the Commons began to find themselves in from this period onwards.

Parliament dissolved
Charles I was furious and dissolved the Parliament that very same day. He did not call another one for 11 years, making clear his distaste for dealing with Parliament and his belief that the royal prerogative allowed him to rule and to raise money without it.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/petition-of-right/

Of note in the "crisis of 1629-60" was 1649, when parliament cut Charles I's head off.

Lonestarblue

(13,125 posts)

4. Trump has spent his whole life cheating on his taxes. I think his love of tariffs is related.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Nov 6, 2025, 03:33 PM

Nov 6

At some point last year, he talked about tariffs replacing the income tax, which we could get rid of. Who benefits most from no income tax? Trump and other billionaires. The tariffs are a tax on everyone, but it is the poor and middle class who would pay the bulk of the cost, giving a huge amount of wealth to the rich with no income taxes. Most sane economists know that tariffs will not replace the revenue from income taxes, but Trump is delusional enough to believe they will.

Reply to this discussion