Gavin Bade

It wouldn't be an oblique mention.

And does that leave any of Trump's tariffs intact?

Yes, absolutely.

When you think about the tariffs on specific industries, the tariffs on steel and aluminum products, for instance, on cars and car parts, on trucks, on lumber.

All of these things were promulgated under what's called Section 232.

It's a much more often used, much more durable and familiar statute.

All of those are going to stay in place.

So, you know, the tariffs on steel and aluminum and products made out of them, those are still in place.

The ones on cars and trucks, still in place.

Lumber, etc.

And there are a number of other investigations that are still being worked through by the Trump administration under this law.

Kavanaugh, who has been very deferential to presidential powers, saying, well, I think they should have this authority.

It's under emergency authorities.

Basically, he has a more expansive view of what the executive branch should be able to do with economic power.

So not entirely surprising that the justices who dissented decided to do that in this case.

The majority opinion does not explicitly address the issue of refunds, right?

Typically, in a smaller tariff case, if the government takes some tariff money from a company and then it's ruled that it was improper to do so, there's a whole process that you go through with customs to get that tariff money back.

Those processes are probably not adequate for just this scale for hundreds of billions of dollars of tariff revenue that's come in.

I would be surprised if that were the case just because there's obvious material harm that these companies can show.

And there have been thousands of claims already filed in court by these companies.