No. of Recommendations: 5
The Duchy of Grand Fenwick is a tiny fictional country created by Leonard Wibberley in a series of comedic novels beginning with "The Mouse That Roared" (which was made into a 1959 film). The premise of the book was that the tiny country felt left out because every country with went to war with the US lost and then received vast amounts of assistance from the victor to rebuild. They debated about the best way to attack so that they too could lose and share in the largesse. During the debate, one of the members of the government asked "But what will happen if we win?".
In 2025, the US government collected about $195 billion in tariffs (customs duties), a dramatic increase compared to previous years. This figure is based on finalized Treasury and independent budget reports and reflects the impact of new and expanded tariffs implemented in 2025. Most of the revenue—about $150 billion—was collected in the second half of the year after new tariffs took effect.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the explicit authority over tariffs in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. It states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."
Since tariffs are a type of duty or impost, this clause makes it clear that only Congress—not the president—may impose or modify tariffs. Over time, Congress has passed laws that delegate some tariff authority to the president (such as under the Trade Expansion Act and others), but those powers originate from Congress’s constitutional authority.
So, the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) is where this responsibility is established.
Today, the plaintiffs suing the Executive Branch (President Trump and his administration) in the Supreme Court over tariffs are:
Several small businesses—notably V.O.S. Selections, Plastic Services and Products (Genova Pipe), MicroKits, FishUSA Inc., and Terry Precision Cycling.
Learning Resources, Inc., a family-owned toy company.
A coalition of 12 states, including Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont, among others.
These plaintiffs argue that the president overstepped his authority in imposing sweeping global tariffs under emergency powers, and they claim this action is unconstitutional. The legal challenge is consolidated from multiple lawsuits, and the lead plaintiff is Victor Schwartz, a New York wine and liquor importer.
Additionally, the Liberty Justice Center, a conservative legal advocacy organization led by Sara Albrecht, is also part of the fight against these tariffs.
If the Supreme Court rules that the executive branch’s tariffs are unconstitutional, the US government will likely be required to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariffs collected from importers. Legal experts and Treasury officials agree that about $90 billion (or even half of all tariffs collected during this period) could be subject to mandatory refunds to businesses that paid them.
However, the process will not be instant:
Refunds are common in customs, but businesses must submit claims or paperwork to prove payment.
It may take months, and only companies that follow the required procedures will actually get their money back.
The Treasury Department would need to raise funds (potentially by selling bonds), which could affect financial markets.
Consumers may also pursue class-action lawsuits for higher prices linked to the tariffs if companies receive refunds.
So, the answer is yes, if the executive branch loses, collected tariffs will generally have to be returned, but the actual refunding will be complicated and require follow-up from affected businesses (or consumers) to get the money back.
Tariffs are essentially a sales tax passed along to thee final user by means of a higher price. While some items may be directly sold to the end user by the importer, it is likely that most will take the rebate as either coverage for tariff costs absorbed or as incremental profit for tariff costs passed on to the next purchaser in the supply chain.
The government would either have to add these costs to the deficit, increase taxation or print money to cover them (increasing inflation).
The ramification of the outcome of this case could create some massive profit wins if the plaintiffs are successful and pressure on the government to increase corporate and personal income taxes. Not a happy situation for some politicians.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 0
The government would either have to add these costs to the deficit, increase taxation or print money to cover them (increasing inflation).
According to the Google net sifter, the average ACA subsidy is $550/month. Multiply by 22M recipients, I get about $12.1B/month. So, ending the ACA subsidy, which is apparently included in current law, will make that money available.
Ending SNAP permanently, would make another $9B/month available.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
The ramification of the outcome of this case could create some massive profit wins if the plaintiffs are successful and pressure on the government to increase corporate and personal income taxes. Not a happy situation for some politicians.
Jeff
Or congress could pass the tariffs.
Cheers
Qazulight
