After Supreme Court rebuke, Democrats call for government to refund billions in Trump tariff money

posted in: All news | 0

By JOSH BOAK

WASHINGTON (AP) — A trio of Senate Democrats is calling for the government to start refunding roughly $175 billion in tariff revenues that the Supreme Court ruled were collected because of an illegal set of orders by President Donald Trump.

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire are unveiling a bill on Monday that would require U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue refunds over the course of 180 days and pay interest on the refunded amount.

Related Articles


Supreme Court agrees to hear from oil and gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits


Judge blocks release of special counsel Smith’s report on Trump classified documents case


US military moves forces and equipment out of northeast Syria base


State Department orders nonessential US diplomats to leave Lebanon as tensions with Iran soar


Rubio heads to Caribbean to reassert US interests after Venezuela strikes and Iran threats

The measure would prioritize refunds to small businesses and encourages importers, wholesalers and large companies to pass the refunds on to their customers.

“Trump’s illegal tax scheme has already done lasting damage to American families, small businesses and manufacturers who have been hammered by wave after wave of new Trump tariffs,” said Wyden, stressing that the “crucial first step” to fixing the problem begins with “putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible.”

The bill is unlikely to become law, but it reveals how Democrats are starting to apply public pressure on a Trump administration that has shown little interest in trying to return tariff revenues after the Supreme Court announced its 6-3 ruling on Friday.

Because of the ruling, going into November’s midterm elections for control of Congress, Democrats have begun telling the public that Trump illegally raised taxes and now refuses to repay the money back to the American people.

Shaheen said that repairing any of the damage caused by the tariffs in the form of higher prices starts with “President Trump refunding the illegally collected tariff taxes that Americans were forced to pay.” Markey stressed that small business tend to have ”little to no resources” and a “refund process can be extremely difficult and time consuming” for companies.

The Trump administration has asserted that its hands are tied, because any refunds should be the responsibility of further litigation in court.

That message could put Republicans on the defensive as they try to explain why the government isn’t proactively seeking to return the money. GOP lawmakers had planned to try to preserve their House and Senate majorities by running on the income tax cuts that Trump signed into law last year, saying that tax refunds this year would help families.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN on Sunday that it’s “bad framing” to raise the question of refunds because the Supreme Court ruling did not address the issue. The administration’s position is that any refunds will be decided by lawsuits winding their way through the legal system, rather than by a president who has repeatedly stressed to voters that he has the ability to act with speed and resolve.

“It is not up to the administration — it is up to the lower court,” Bessent said, stressing that rather than offer any guidance he would “wait” for a court opinion on refunds.

Trump has defended his use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs on almost every U.S. trading partner, saying that his ability to levy taxes on imports had helped to end military conflicts, bring in new federal revenues and apply pressure for negotiating trade frameworks.

The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model released estimates that the refunds would total $175 billion. That’s the equivalent of an average of $1,300 per U.S. household. But determining how to structure reimbursements would be tricky, as the costs of the tariffs flowed through the economy in the form of customers paying the taxes directly as well as importers passing along the cost either indirectly or absorbing them.

The president has previously claimed that refunds would drive up U.S. government debt and hurt the economy. On Friday, he told reporters at a briefing that the refund process could be finished after he leaves the White House.

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” Trump said, later amending his timeline by saying: “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

The 2026 Minnesota team wrestling state tournament brackets

posted in: All news | 0

The team state wrestling tournament is a two-day affair this season, a departure from the longstanding, single-day format.

As part of the entire tournament adding an extra day of competition, the team portion will open with the quarterfinals Wednesday afternoon before competing in the semifinals later that evening, with the championship duals set for Thursday night.

Brackets for all three classes were recently unveiled.

The entire tournament will take place at Grand Casino Arena in downtown St. Paul, and can be viewed online on the Neighborhood Sports Network.

The complete brackets for each class are listed below and can be found on the MSHSL site.

Brackets will be updated daily on the website with results throughout the tournament.

Class 3A

Wednesday’s Quarterfinals, 4 p.m.

No. 1 St. Michael-Albertville vs. Brainerd

No. 4 Hastings vs. No. 5 Elk River

No. 2 Stillwater vs. Apple Valley

No. 3 Shakopee vs. Northfield

Wednesday’s Semifinals, 8 p.m.

STMA/Brainerd vs. Hastings/Elk River

Still/AV vs. Shak/Northfield

Thursday’s final, 7 p.m.

Semifinal winners

Class 2A

Wednesday’s quarterfinals, 4 p.m.

No. 1 Simley vs. South St. Paul

No. 4 Scott West vs. No. 5 Foley

No. 2 New Ulm vs. Totino-Grace

No. 3 Pierz vs. Perham

Wednesday’s semifinals, 8 p.m.

Simley/SSP vs. SW/Foley

New Ulm/TG vs. Pierz/Per

Thursday’s final, 7 p.m.

Semifinal winners

Class A

Wednesday’s quarterfinals, 6 p.m.

No. 1 Staples-Motley vs. Kenyon-Wanamingo

No. 4 United North Central vs. No. 5 Jackson County Central

No. 2 Minneota vs. LeSueur-Henderson

No. 3 Chatfield vs. West Central Area/Ashby/Brandon-Evansville

Wednesday’s semifinals, 8 p.m.

SM/KW vs. UNC/JCC

Minnesota/LSH vs. Chat/WCAAABE

Thursday’s final, 7 p.m.

Semifinal winners

Related Articles


Girls state hockey: Pioneers hang on to win 2A title


Girls state hockey: Breck wins Class A title


State gymnastics: North/Tartan’s Sydney Johnson wins two titles


Girls state hockey: Late power-play goal lifts Hill-Murray past Edina


State gymnastics: Monticello proves it belongs in 2A with team state title

Supreme Court agrees to hear from oil and gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits

posted in: All news | 0

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear from oil and gas companies trying to block lawsuits seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in damage linked to climate change.

The conservative-majority court agreed to take up a case from Boulder, Colorado, among a series of lawsuits alleging the companies deceived the public about how fossil fuels contribute to climate change.

Governments around the country have sought damages totaling billions of dollars, arguing it’s necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms worsened by climate change. The lawsuits come amid a wave of legal actions in states including California, Hawaii and New Jersey and worldwide seeking to leverage action through the courts.

Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil appealed to the Supreme Court after Colorado’s highest court let the Boulder case proceed. The companies argue emissions are a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out.

“The use of state law to address global climate change represents a serious threat to one of our Nation’s most critical sectors,” attorneys wrote.

President Donald Trump’s administration weighed in to support the companies and urge the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court decision, saying it would mean “every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.”

Trump, a Republican, has criticized the lawsuits in an executive order, and the Justice Department has sought to head some off in court.

Attorneys for Boulder had agued that the litigation is still in early stages and should stay in state court. “There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” they wrote.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Judge blocks release of special counsel Smith’s report on Trump classified documents case

posted in: All news | 0

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday permanently barred the release of a report by special counsel Jack Smith on his investigation into President Donald Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Related Articles


State Department orders nonessential US diplomats to leave Lebanon as tensions with Iran soar


Rubio heads to Caribbean to reassert US interests after Venezuela strikes and Iran threats


FBI director joins US men’s hockey team in locker room celebration of Olympic gold medal


How Trump will use his State of the Union address to sell skeptical midterm voters on his plans


25 Mexican National Guard troops left dead in Jalisco after cartel leader’s killing, official says

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, granted a request from the Republican president to keep under wraps the report on a criminal investigation once seen as posing significant legal peril to Trump.

Smith and his team produced a two-volume report on investigations into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election after he lost to Joe Biden and his retention of classified documents at his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left the White House following his first term.

Both investigations produced indictments that were abandoned by Smith’s team after Trump’s November 2024 election win in light of longstanding Justice Department legal opinions that say sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.

Cannon, who in 2024 dismissed the case after concluding that Smith was unlawfully appointed, said the release of the report would present a “manifest injustice” to Trump and his two co-defendants.

“Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges,” she wrote. “As a result, the former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order.”

President Donald Trump attends the National Governors Association dinner at the White House, Saturday, Feb. 21, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

She said that though it is true that special counsels have historically released reports at the conclusion of their work, they have done so either after electing not to bring charges in a particular case or “after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial.”

“The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt, at least not in a situation like this one, where the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence.”