To the editor: The Friday Supreme Court docket ruling in Studying Assets Inc. vs. Trump confirmed what many people suspected: The Worldwide Emergency Financial Powers Act tariffs have been unlawfully imposed (“Supreme Court rejects Trump tariffs, stressing powers of Congress,” Feb. 20). However the ruling left the query of how wrongfully remitted monies will probably be returned unanswered.
My firm, the Inexperienced Garmento, provides reusable packaging. Amongst our shoppers: a big laundry and dry-cleaning service that had initiated a manufacturing order with our Chinese language manufacturing unit associate earlier than import prices rose dramatically.
As these merchandise are important to their operations, they needed to proceed with imports in spring 2025, when mixed tariff rates reached 145%. That resulted in near $200,000 in tariff calls for that the courtroom has now dominated have been collected with out authorized authority.
Current law requires importers to file a protest inside 180 days of fee, a rule not designed for tariffs later struck down as illegal. Had companies filed protests to a then-legal tax, they’d have been deemed frivolous. The problem: Although the tariffs have now been dominated unlawful, for these compromised probably the most, the window below present regulation has expired.
Congress can and should act. Extending the protest deadline or creating a brand new claims course of for IEEPA tariff funds made earlier than this ruling would enable the federal government to return cash it had no proper to take. With out motion, the federal government merely retains what it had no authorized proper to require.
The courtroom has spoken. The manager department has mentioned it is not going to act voluntarily. The ability of the purse belongs to Congress — and so does the accountability to repair this.
Jennie Nigrosh, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: One of many arguments put ahead by the three Supreme Court docket justices who dissented within the case of Studying Assets vs. Trump was that almost all choice would create a “mess.” I suppose that thought wasn’t high of thoughts for them after they dominated in Roe vs. Wade. That call led to numerous lawsuits, much less out there healthcare in lots of states and young women dying. Apparently, that’s the form of mess the dissenters welcome.
Mark Wilding, Studio Metropolis
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court docket strikes down President Trump’s tariffs and blissful days are right here once more — for the Democrats. Trump’s failures are their wins, even when the nation loses.
Trump needs to make the nation rich, protected and wholesome, judging by his insurance policies. Love him or hate him, I’ll take my probabilities. We have now nothing to concern however ignorance and the residents who usually are not paying consideration.
Elaine Vanoff, West Hollywood
..
To the editor: What was stunning within the 6-3 choice by the Supreme Court docket was the truth that it was not 9-0. The three dissenting judges, who falsely declare to be “originalists” of the Structure, went towards the clearest distinction of energy between Congress and the manager branches. If they’ll do that when the Structure clearly states its intention, what else are they prepared to sacrifice?
Additional, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh complains about uncertainty over the refund course of. Didn’t Trump pronounce overseas international locations paid for the tariffs?
And regardless of this ruling, Trump has now introduced a ten% international tariff. Trump’s historical past reveals he simply doesn’t perceive that no means no.
Stuart Rubenstein, San Diego
..
To the editor: In Trump’s insulting assault on the Supreme Court docket justices who dominated that the president didn’t have the authority to impose tariffs below the Worldwide Emergency Financial Powers Act, he clearly revealed his stance that when you don’t do what he needs, you’re mistaken and a foul particular person (“Trump calls justices ‘fools,’ announces new 10% global tariff after Supreme Court setback,” Feb. 20). It is a purely dictatorial mindset.
America has three branches of presidency together with the judicial department, specifically the Supreme Court docket. After evaluate of the information and regulation submitted by the events, the courtroom dominated 6 to three that the manager department acted inconsistent with the relevant regulation. The six judges within the majority on this ruling included two Trump appointees. They’re to behave as judges, not staff of Trump. Their choices are grounded within the information and relevant regulation, they usually did their job as required by the Structure.
Trump calling the ruling judges “fools,” “lapdogs” and “a shame to our nation” is a transparent revelation of his dictatorial and damaging method to workplace. He’s at present destroying America’s civil service system and bringing again authorities employment by the spoils system — a key for all dictators. Now, his view of the judicial department of presidency is obvious: destroy it so he can rule.
Michael Harvey Miller, Pasadena
..
To the editor: The key financial coverage initiated on the introduction of Trump’s second time period — the linchpin with out which his plans for tax discount, re-industrialization of the heartland and worldwide commerce rejuvenation would go awry — has been struck down by a divided Supreme Court docket (“The Supreme Court’s tariffs decision sends a clear message to Trump,” Feb. 20). His sweeping tariffs have been judged unconstitutional not as a result of the justices within the majority don’t just like the coverage, however as a result of he had no authorized authority below legal guidelines handed by Congress for his motion. The Supreme Court docket evaluations and adjudicates legal guidelines; it doesn’t make or break coverage as coverage per se. Trump ought to know that.
His petulant response to the choice, together with criticism of justices he appointed throughout his first time period, signifies his ignorance of our courtroom system, a foul look.
Paul Bloustein, Cincinnati
..
To the editor: Contributing author Erwin Chemerinsky appears to be a bit off-track. The key questions doctrine is a fallacious smoke display that permits John G. Roberts Jr.’s MAGA justices to rewrite the Structure. The liberal minority accurately doesn’t agree with it and mustn’t.
The truth that some conservative justices used it to strike down illegal tariffs is just a case of a damaged clock being proper twice a day.
Michael Harold, West L.A.
