Karp has degrees in computer science and in law (from Stanford). It is not intelligence that he lacks, it is compassion and moral judgment. Both of those are readily suppressed by great wealth.

Karp is not stupid. He is high-intelligence but amoral.

If any reasonable person could gave entertained a reasonable doubt on the intent-to-distribute element, the judge should have given the requested instruction

Thanks for the tip. We went out to see, and enjoyed it. The azure blue swathe between the two pinks was awesome.

Every word of this is either false or fallacious. Start with the commandment against coveting … your neighbor’s wife. Private property?! Besides being entirely immaterial to any proper legal analysis of the question before the court.

“Controversial” is quite the understatement here.

Not in the context of taxes and tariffs. But that doesn’t matter. Turns out there is a statute mandating refunds: 19 USC 1520.

Apparently, 19 USC 1520 authorizes and directs the refunds, although not cited in the CIT opinion yesterday.

I read them more broadly. But someone actually answered my question: Apparently, 19 USC 1520 authorizes and directs the refunds, although not cited in the CIT opinion yesterday

/2 In the second case (my friend’s), J. Powell (I think) asked the CT AAG whether “the state had waived its abstention defense under Younger and Harris”. AAG responded he was “not familiar with those cases” (sic). White then said, “Wouldn’t have been a knowing or intelligent waiver anyway.” /end

/1 Justice White was brutal in both. Florida AG Shevin tried to read his argument verbatim, illustrated by a poster-sized map he had set up on an easel next to the lectern (apparently without advance notice to the clerk or marshal); didn’t go over well. /1

I beat you, with a 1975 response.

Thank you

US v Florida, 420 US 531 (1975), while waiting to hear my friend and law school supervisor argue Roe v Norton, 422 US 391 (1975). Date of argument Feb. 25, 1975.

US v Clintwood Elkhorn (2008); US v Dalm (1990); Lewis v Reynolds (1933)

Only asking a legal question, the question I wrote. Nothing else. Because there’s a weird rule that the government doesn’t normally have to pay back money they got unfairly unless there is some specific law that authorizes and directs the refund.

Yes, that’s exactly (and exclusively) what the opinion says.

Not questioning their right to sue. Asking whether they are entitled to win.

Not that I can see in the opinion. Judge never asked much less answered that question

Asking a legal question. No reason for you to get abusive about it. The “taxpayer” here unfortunately is the importer business that paid the unlawful IEEPA tariff.

I agree about common sense and fairness. The law doesn’t always follow those rules. I am asking a purely legal question

The Anti-deficiency Act requires a law, doesn’t it?

What law (as opposed to an instinct about fairness) - whether statute or precedent - authorizes or requires a refund here?

The govt claimed that IEEPA authorized the tariffs/tax. Court later said no. It was not (legally speaking) a “taking.” What law says there has to be a refund? Seriously asking. Fairness is not an answer to that question.

After all, no money can be paid out of the US Treasury except according to law and pursuant to an appropriation, even to refund an unjust payment. E.g., criminal conviction reversed on appeal after defendant paid a fine.

Passed on to their customers

Why are refunds due? Is there a statute or judicial precedent that says if a tax is imposed (and paid) under a law later declared invalid, then the taxpayer is entitled to a refund? Particularly where, as here, there was no loss to the taxpayer? If there is one, the CIT order doesn’t mention it.

Is there a statute or judicial precedent that says if a tax is imposed (and paid) under a law that is later declared invalid, then the taxpayer is entitled to a refund? If there is one, the judge doesn’t mention it in this little order/opinion.

Very unfortunately, this opinion assumes the good faith and integrity of Immigration Judges. But IJs are not independent judicial officers. They work within the DOJ (not part of DHS, at least), and in the last year most of the fair minded ones have been fired. Mostly replaced by unqualified hacks.

Thanks so much for the link. I know one of the authors but was not familiar with the article