Jackson, Sotomayor dissent as Supreme Court turns away Black dancer's discrimination appeal
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Black dancer's appeal in her discrimination lawsuit against several Houston clubs, drawing dissent from two of the high court's liberal justices.
Chanel Nicholson filed suit against the clubs in August 2021, claiming they maintained a racist policy which limited the number of Black dancers who could work the same shift, in violation of federal law prohibiting racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts.
Nicholson said she was denied work repeatedly over the quota, including in 2014, 2017 and 2021. However, her case was dismissed by a district court that concluded the applicable statute of limitations clock began ticking in 2014; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision.
She asked the justices to decide when the statute of limitations starts to run in a claim of 'pattern or practice' of racial discrimination. They declined to hear her case.
But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that their fellow justices got it wrong by refusing to consider Nicholson's appeal.
The appeals court panel determined that the more recent discriminatory acts against Nicholson were the 'continued effects' of past race-based exclusion and, thus, not actionable on their own — a holding Jackson said 'flouts this Court's clear precedents.'
'We have long held that '[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act,' regardless of whether similar instances of discrimination have occurred in the past,' she wrote. 'Because the Fifth Circuit's contrary ruling was patently erroneous, this Court should have granted Nicholson's petition and summarily reversed the judgment.'
Jackson homed in on two instances where Nicholson was turned away: in November 2017 and August 2021.
Nicholson said a manager at one club, Cover Girls, told her she could not perform in November 2017 because there were already 'too many Black girls' in the club. She took a hiatus from dancing between 2018 and 2021, but maintained her license and access agreements. Then, in August 2021, she attempted to return to performing at a club called Splendor — but a manager told her the club was 'not taking any more Black girls.'
The alleged instances of discriminatory treatment violated her contractual right to 'se[t] her own schedule' and 'arrive and leave the premises at any time without penalty,' according to the dancer.
Jackson argued that both alleged 'discrete' instances of discrimination occurred within the four-year period before Nicholson filed suit in August 2021. She called the 5th Circuit's analysis of the statute of limitations 'patently erroneous.'
'To conclude that Nicholson's claims are time barred because there were earlier instances of discriminatory treatment, as the Fifth Circuit did, impermissibly inoculates the clubs' more recent discriminatory conduct,' Jackson wrote.
'If sustained discriminatory motivation is all that is required to transform recent, racially discriminatory acts into the 'continued effects' of earlier discriminatory conduct, then past discrimination could inexplicably prevent recovery for later, similarly unlawful conduct,' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
While Gov. JB Pritzker scored wins during legislative session, cellphone ban, other initiatives fell short
Entering a legislative session amid questions about whether he'd run for a third term, Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker outlined an ambitious agenda that ended with mixed results. In a State of the State and budget address in February that will be remembered mainly for Pritzker invoking Nazi Germany to describe the new presidential administration, there was also a litany of policy initiatives — some of which passed and will now have a tangible impact on Illinoisans and others that went nowhere in the spring legislative session that just wrapped up. 'You don't get everything done in one year. I think the Senate president can back me up on that, and lots of people in the General Assembly,' Pritzker said Sunday at his end-of-session news conference in Springfield, flanked by Senate President Don Harmon of Oak Park. 'Sometimes they spend two years, four years, six years trying to get something big done. I think we've been hyper-successful about getting things done in a shorter period of time than expected.' But Pritzker's mixed scorecard also revealed tensions between his agenda and those in the Legislative Black Caucus. More than once, Black caucus members balked at Pritzker's plans as they didn't see their wants and needs fully addressed during a legislative session that focused heavily on fiscal issues and a tight budget. Indeed, while the governor's backing puts political capital behind any policy proposal, that didn't mean it was guaranteed to pass through the sometimes splintered Democratic supermajorities in the state House and Senate. Here are some examples of where the governor accomplished what he set out to do — and a few places where he came up short. What Pritzker said: 'This session, I'll move forward with legislation requiring all school districts in Illinois to adopt a cellphone policy that bans the use of phones during classroom instruction. More focus on learning will bring even greater success for kids across our state.' Status: Did not pass. A coalition of Illinois House lawmakers blocked the measure when it came to the House late in the session over concerns about unequal disciplinary impacts, according to bill sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Michelle Mussman of Schaumburg. Concerns about enforcement disproportionately affecting Black and brown students became more pronounced as lawmakers reviewed the phone restriction alongside another bill limiting police from ticketing students for minor misbehavior, according to Mussman. Legislators were hesitant to pass a statewide school mandate while also debating a measure meant to scale back school discipline practices, she said. Rep. Curtis Tarver, a Chicago Democrat and a member of the Black caucus, told the Tribune in February he worried about the 'unintended consequences' of a phone ban, including inequitable enforcement. The legislation against ticketing and fines passed both chambers and now heads to Pritzker's desk for his signature. A Chicago Tribune and ProPublica investigation found school districts used local law enforcement to fine students, and Black students were twice as likely to be ticketed at school as their white peers, a pattern lawmakers aimed to end. Pritzker's cellphone policy will have to wait for another session when there's more time to work out the enforcement aspect, Mussman said. The measure would have required school districts to adopt guidelines prohibiting students from using wireless devices, such as cellphones and smartwatches, during instructional time, while providing secure and accessible storage for the devices, before the 2026-2027 school year. The legislation also included a few exceptions, such as permitting students to use phones in emergencies. In the end, negotiations around the measure came down to a 'dance' between ensuring local school boards had control over their own policies while also protecting students from 'inequitably applied' policies, Mussman said. Moreover, representatives were unsure how to implement guidance on 'how a phone might be returned if it was confiscated, or what to do if anything was lost or broken,' she added. Also not quite making the mark: Pritzker's push to expand so-called evidence-based funding for K-12 schools by $350 million. The final plan would boost funding by $307 million, cutting $43 million that usually would go to a grant program designed to help school districts with high property tax rates and low real estate values. What Pritzker said: 'I'm proposing that we allow community colleges to offer four-year baccalaureate degrees for in-demand career paths — like nursing, advanced manufacturing, early childhood education, and beyond.' And: 'I propose we pass the Public University Direct Admission Program Act introduced by Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford last year. It would allow students to know before they apply whether they qualify for admission to any or all of our state's public universities.' Status: One for two. The Pritzker-led initiative to let community colleges offer four-year degrees didn't make it to the finish line even after the sponsor, Democratic Rep. Tracy Katz Muhl of Northbrook, filed a significant amendment following months of negotiations. The bill was intended to create more paths for students to get affordable, accessible bachelor's degrees in areas that need more workers. However, it initially faced opposition from existing four-year schools that warned it could duplicate degree offerings. Toward the end of the session, Tarver told a Senate committee that the Black caucus had 'significant issues with the bill,' including how it would affect four-year institutions serving a high proportion of Black and minority students, such as Chicago State University. A proposal on direct university admissions, however, passed, meaning high school students and eligible community college students starting in the 2027-2028 school year will automatically be offered admission to public universities if they meet specific GPA standards. What Pritzker said: 'We're going to stop insurance companies from blocking access to mental health. We can do that by banning prior authorization for all behavioral health care. And for rural Illinois families and those who live far away from certain medical care, we'll require insurance reimbursement for reasonable travel costs associated with medical appointments' for some distances. Status: Passed. Building on sweeping health care legislation last year, the General Assembly this session voted on a bill to expand a ban on prior authorization for outpatient behavioral health care, meaning patients will no longer need permission from insurance companies before receiving mental health treatment in many more cases. The same legislation also puts insurers on the hook for travel costs in some instances where closer options aren't adequate. What Pritzker said: 'I'm introducing the Prescription Drug Affordability Act to rein in the unfair practices of PBMs.' Status: Passed. Critics often blame large so-called pharmacy benefit managers, such as CVS Caremark and UnitedHealth Group-owned Optum Rx, for inflating prescription drug costs while pushing independent pharmacies out of business, and Pritzker was largely successful this session in barring these practices, as a bill carrying language to restrict PBM costs passed the legislature with broad bipartisan support. The bill now heading to Pritzker's desk would prohibit PBMs from charging insurance companies more for drugs than they are paid by pharmacies and pocketing the difference; prohibit them from giving better reimbursement rates to pharmacies that the same company owns; and require them to pass along rebates negotiated with drugmakers to health plans and patients. Pritzker indicated Saturday that he would sign the measure, which would also require PBMs to submit annual reports on pricing and other practices to the Illinois Department of Insurance. The measure would charge PBMs an annual $15-per-patient fee, with the first $25 million collected going to a grant fund to support local pharmacies. Supporters of PBMs during the session argued Pritzker's plan was flawed, as they see PBMs as saving patients and employers money partly by negotiating with drugmakers. What Pritzker proposed: As part of the package of policies he announced in February, Pritzker said he'd push several other initiatives, including funding to remediate dilapidated state sites and an easier path for voters to reduce or eliminate local township governments. Status: State site funding passed; township idea stalled. Pritzker received his requested $500 million in state capital funds for two key programs on state sites, including $300 million to remake five or more largely abandoned properties, which would help develop properties 'sitting idle' in areas that are 'ripe' for economic growth, according to his budget proposals. After lawmakers pass budget with cuts and tax hikes, Gov. JB Pritzker blames state's fiscal challenges on Trump Illinois legislators left Springfield without funding public transit (for now). Here's what that means for CTA, Metra, Pace. The state's previous investments in site readiness have generated over $1.5 billion in private investment and the now-passed initiatives could attract more than $4.7 billion in investment, the governor's office said in February. Yet an effort to consolidate smaller townships across the state did not gain much traction as neither bill in the House nor the Senate made it out of committee. Pritzker's office said in February that many of the more than 1,400 townships operating across the state — which levy over $750 million in property taxes — provide services that are duplicative or could be managed more efficiently by municipalities or counties. Townships often provide maintenance and services for rural areas, such as road maintenance and transportation for seniors. Still, several Illinois townships have been tangled with corruption, such as the recent federal investigation of Dolton Mayor and Thornton Township Supervisor Tiffany Henyard over improper spending of taxpayer dollars. The idea of consolidating townships has faltered for a century, partly due to opposition from politicians seeking to preserve their power, as well as concerns that downstate rural areas could lose their civic identity.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: A new chance for school choice in Illinois
Illinois once boasted a program that allowed low-income students to obtain scholarships for private school. It was a lifeline for many families whose kids were flailing in large public schools, who were experiencing painful bullying and needed a new environment, or who just didn't find a good fit in their neighborhood school. Then, state lawmakers, at the urging of teachers unions, let the program expire at the end of 2023, leaving thousands of kids out of options. Without this program, called Invest in Kids, there was simply no money for their families to be able to cover tuition. This editorial board long supported the program, which was supported by private donations in exchange for a 75% income tax credit. Kids whose family incomes were below 300% of the federal poverty level were eligible. In the 2022-23 school year, more than one-quarter of scholarship recipients came from families earning less than the federal poverty level — $26,500 for a family of four. Nearly two-thirds had household incomes below 185% of the poverty line, or $49,025 for a family of four. More than half of the low-income students who received scholarships through Empower Illinois are Black or Hispanic. Now, these kids and their families have reason to hope. Republicans in Congress have introduced the Educational Choice for Children Act, a federal program that would provide tax-credit scholarships for K-12 students nationwide. Like Invest in Kids, this initiative would offer families a lifeline if their public school isn't meeting their child's needs. The ECCA continues to move forward after being included in the budget reconciliation bill approved by the U.S. House on May 22, but must still clear the Senate. This federal initiative proposes up to $5 billion annually in tax credits for donations to scholarship-granting organizations, aiming to restore educational opportunities for disadvantaged students in Illinois and nationwide. Opponents of school choice believe that education is a zero-sum game, and that private schools are a threat to the public system. We believe the opposite — that a thriving private and charter system and a strong traditional public system create an education ecosystem that can serve everyone's needs. There are things private schools can do that public ones can't, and the same is very much true in reverse. School choice remains popular in Illinois, with a clear majority of residents supporting the concept. More importantly, choice introduces accountability into a system that, for decades, has faced little real competition. When parents have options, schools must respond — whether by improving curriculum, addressing student behavior issues more effectively, or offering stronger support for struggling learners. Right now, parents with money can tap into alternatives. Poor ones mostly cannot. We view this as fundamentally unfair, and support a world where everyone has access to transformational education options. Illinois is fortunate to have many outstanding public schools, from suburban standouts like New Trier to top-tier magnets like Walter Payton College Prep. We also recognize the value of private schools that serve distinct communities — including faith-based, independent and neighborhood-based institutions. All play unique roles in our education ecosystem. Sadly, after Invest in Kids expired, a number of private schools also folded, including St. Odilo School in Berwyn, a pre-K to eighth grade Catholic school. Springfield has moved on from the thousands of low-income students it left behind a year and a half ago. Now, the ECCA is their best shot. We hope that the Senate passes a version of the reconciliation bill that includes this program. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Tariffs Explained: Everything You Need to Know as Trump Doubles Another Tariff
While Donald Trump's wide-ranging taxes on imports face scrutiny in court, rates on steel and aluminum have been doubled. James Martin/CNET President Donald Trump's second-term economic plan can be summed up in one word: tariffs. When his barrage of import taxes went into overdrive a month ago, markets trembled and business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause. After weeks of uncertainty and clashes with major companies, Trump's tariffs hit their biggest roadblock yet in court before being reinstated ahead of a final ruling, allowing him to double the rate on imported steel and aluminum this week. Late Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs, effectively nullifying the tariffs, after concluding that Congress has the sole authority to issue tariffs and decide other foreign trade matters, and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 -- which Trump has used to justify his ability to impose them -- doesn't grant the president "unlimited" authority on tariffs. The next day, an appeals court allowed the tariffs to go back into effect for the time being, while the administration calls for the Supreme Court to overturn the trade court ruling altogether. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 9:42 Loaded : 0.86% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 9:42 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs However things shake out in the end, the initial ruling certainly came as a relief to many, given the chaos and uncertainty that Trump's tariffs how caused thus far. For his part, Trump has recently lashed out against companies -- like Apple and Walmart -- that have reacted to the tariffs or discussed their impacts in ways he dislikes. Apple has been working to move manufacturing for the US market from China to relatively less-tariffed India, to which Trump has threatened them with a 25% penalty rate if they don't bring manufacturing to the US instead. Experts have predicted that a US-made iPhone, for example, would cost consumers about $3,500. During a recent earnings call, Walmart warned that prices would rise on things like toys, tech and food at some point in the summer, which prompted Trump to demand the chain eat the costs themselves, another unlikely scenario. Amid all this noise, you might still be wondering: What exactly are tariffs and what will they mean for me? The short answer: Expect to pay more for at least some goods and services. For the long answer, keep reading, and for more, check out CNET's price tracker for 11 popular and tariff-vulnerable products. What are tariffs? Put simply, a tariff is a tax on the cost of importing or exporting goods by a particular country. So, for example, a "60% tariff" on Chinese imports would be a 60% tax on the price of importing, say, computer components from China. Trump has been fixated on imports as the centerpiece of his economic plans, often claiming that the money collected from taxes on imported goods would help finance other parts of his agenda. The US imports $3 trillion of goods from other countries annually. The president has also, more recently, shown a particular fixation on trade deficits, claiming that the US having a trade deficit with any country means that country is ripping the US off. This is a flawed understanding of the matter, as a lot of economists have said, deficits are often a simple case of resource realities: Wealthy nations like the US buy specific things from nations that have them, while those nations might in turn not be wealthy enough to buy much of anything from the US. While Trump deployed tariffs in his first term, notably against China, he ramped up his plans more significantly for the 2024 campaign, promising 60% tariffs against China and a universal 20% tariff on all imports into the US. Now, tariffs against China are more than double that amount and a universal tariff on all exports is a reality. "Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented," Trump said at a campaign stop in Michigan last year. At one point, he called himself "Tariff Man" in a post on Truth Social. Who pays the cost of tariffs? Trump repeatedly claimed, before and immediately after returning to the White House, that the country of origin for an imported good pays the cost of the tariffs and that Americans would not see any price increases from them. However, as economists and fact-checkers stressed, this is not the case. The companies importing the tariffed goods -- American companies or organizations in this case -- pay the higher costs. To compensate, companies can raise their prices or absorb the additional costs themselves. So, who ends up paying the price for tariffs? In the end, usually you, the consumer. For instance, a universal tariff on goods from Canada would increase Canadian lumber prices, which would have the knock-on effect of making construction and home renovations more expensive for US consumers. While it is possible for a company to absorb the costs of tariffs without increasing prices, this is not at all likely, at least for now. Speaking with CNET, Ryan Reith, vice president of International Data's worldwide mobile device tracking programs, explained that price hikes from tariffs, especially on technology and hardware, are inevitable in the short term. He estimated that the full amount imposed on imports by Trump's tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which he called the "cost pass-through." Any potential efforts for companies to absorb the new costs themselves would come in the future, once they have a better understanding of the tariffs, if at all. Which Trump tariffs have gone into effect? Following Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements on April 2, the following tariffs are in effect: A 50% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, doubled from 25% as of June 4. A 30% tariff on all Chinese imports until Aug. 10 while negotiations continue. China being a major focus of Trump's trade agenda, this rate has been notably higher than others and has steadily increased as Beijing returned fire with tariffs of its own, peaking at 145%, which it could return to down the line if a deal is not reached. 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico not covered under the 2018 USMCA trade agreement brokered during Trump's first term. The deal covers roughly half of all imports from Canada and about a third of those from Mexico, so the rest are subject to the new tariffs. Energy imports not covered by USMCA only will be taxed at 10%. A 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts. A sweeping overall 10% tariff on all imported goods. For certain countries that Trump said were more responsible for the US trade deficit, Trump imposed what he called "reciprocal" tariffs that exceed the 10% level: 20% for the 27 nations that make up the European Union, 26% for India, 24% for Japan and so on. These were meant to take effect on April 9 but were delayed by 90 days as a result of historic stock market volatility, which makes the new effective date July 8. Trump's claim that these reciprocal tariffs are based on high tariffs imposed against the US by the targeted countries has drawn intense pushback from experts and economists, who have argued that some of these numbers are false or potentially inflated. For example, the above chart claims a 39% tariff from the EU, despite its average tariff for US goods being around 3%. Some of the tariffs are against places that are not countries but tiny territories of other nations. The Heard and McDonald Islands, for example, are uninhabited. We'll dig into the confusion around these calculations below. Notably, that minimum 10% tariff will not be on top of those steel, aluminum and auto tariffs. Canada and Mexico were also spared from the 10% minimum additional tariff imposed on all countries the US trades with. On April 11, the administration said smartphones, laptops and other consumer electronics, along with flat panel displays, memory chips and semiconductors, were exempt from reciprocal tariffs. But it wasn't clear whether that would remain the case or whether such products might face different fees later. How were the Trump reciprocal tariffs calculated? The numbers released by the Trump administration for its barrage of "reciprocal" tariffs led to widespread confusion among experts. Trump's own claim that these new rates were derived by halving the tariffs already imposed against the US by certain countries was widely disputed, with critics noting that some of the numbers listed for certain countries were much higher than the actual rates and some countries had tariff rates listed despite not specifically having tariffs against the US at all. In a post to X that spread fast across social media, finance journalist James Surowiecki said that the new reciprocal rates appeared to have been reached by taking the trade deficit the US has with each country and dividing it by the amount the country exports to the US. This, he explained, consistently produced the reciprocal tariff percentages revealed by the White House across the board. "What extraordinary nonsense this is," Surowiecki wrote about the finding. The White House later attempted to debunk this idea, releasing what it claimed was the real formula, though it was quickly determined that this formula was arguably just a more complex version of the one Surowiecki deduced. What will the Trump tariffs do to prices? In short: Prices are almost certainly going up, if not now, then eventually. That is, if the products even make it to US shelves at all, as some tariffs will simply be too high for companies to bother dealing with. While the effects of a lot of tariffs might not be felt straight away, some potential real-world examples have already emerged. Microsoft has increased prices across the board for its Xbox gaming brand, with its flagship Xbox Series X console jumping 20% from $500 to $600. Elsewhere, Kent International, one of the main suppliers of bicycles to Walmart, announced that it would be stopping imports from China, which account for 90% of its stock. Speaking about Trump's tariff plans just before they were announced, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that they would generate $6 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Given that tariffs are most often paid by consumers, CNN characterized this as potentially "the largest tax hike in US history." New estimates from the Yale Budget Lab, cited by Axios, predict that Trump's new tariffs will cause a 2.3% increase in inflation throughout 2025. This translates to about a $3,800 increase in expenses for the average American household. Reith, the IDC analyst, told CNET that Chinese-based tech companies, like PC makers Acer, Asus and Lenovo, have "100% exposure" to these import taxes as they currently stand, with products like phones and computers the most likely to take a hit. He also said that the companies best positioned to weather the tariff impacts are those that have moved some of their operations out of China to places like India, Thailand and Vietnam, singling out the likes of Apple, Dell and HP. Samsung, based in South Korea, is also likely to avoid the full force of Trump's tariffs. In an effort to minimize its tariff vulnerability, Apple has begun to move the production of goods for the US market from China to India. Will tariffs impact prices immediately? In the short term -- the first days or weeks after a tariff takes effect -- maybe not. There are still a lot of products in the US imported pre-tariffs and on store shelves, meaning the businesses don't need a price hike to recoup import taxes. Once new products need to be brought in from overseas, that's when you'll see prices start to climb because of tariffs or you'll see them become unavailable. That uncertainty has made consumers anxious. CNET's survey revealed that about 38% of shoppers feel pressured to make certain purchases before tariffs make them more expensive. About 10% say they have already made certain purchases in hopes of getting them in before the price hikes, while 27% said they have delayed purchases for products that cost more than $500. Generally, this worry is the most acute concerning smartphones, laptops and home appliances. Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and Trump critic, voiced concerns about when to buy certain things in a post on Bluesky just after Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements. In it, he suggested that consumers might want to stock up on certain items before tariff inflation hits. "It's not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now," Cuban wrote. "From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory. Even if it's made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs." CNET's Money team recommends that before you make any purchase, especially of a high-ticket item, be sure that the expenditure fits within your budget and your spending plans in the first place. Buying something you can't afford now because it might be less affordable later can be burdensome, to say the least. What is the goal of the White House tariff plan? The typical goal behind tariffs is to discourage consumers and businesses from buying the tariffed, foreign-sourced goods and encourage them to buy domestically produced goods instead. When implemented in the right way, tariffs are generally seen as a useful way to protect domestic industries. One of the stated intentions for Trump's tariffs is along those lines: to restore American manufacturing and production. However, the White House also claims to be having negotiations with numerous countries looking for tariffs exemptions and some officials have also floated the idea that the tariffs will help finance Trump's tax cuts. You don't have to think about those goals for too long before you realize that they're contradictory: If manufacturing moves to the US or if a bunch of countries are exempt from tariffs then tariffs aren't actually being collected and can't be used to finance anything. This and many other points have led a lot of economists to allege that Trump's plans are misguided. In terms of returning -- or "reshoring" -- manufacturing in the US, tariffs are a better tool for protecting industries that already exist because importers can fall back on them right away. Building up the factories and plants needed for this in the US could take years, leaving Americans to suffer under higher prices in the interim. That problem is worsened by the fact that the materials needed to build those factories will also be tariffed, making the costs of "reshoring" production in the US too heavy for companies to stomach. These issues, and the general instability of American economic policies under Trump, are part of why experts warn that Trump's tariffs could have the opposite effect: keeping manufacturing out of the US and leaving consumers stuck with inflated prices. Any factories that do get built in the US because of tariffs also have a high chance of being automated, canceling out a lot of job creation potential. To give you one real-world example of this: When warning customers of future price hikes, toy maker Mattel also noted that it had no plans to move manufacturing to the US. Trump has reportedly been fixated on the notion that Apple's iPhone -- the most popular smartphone in the US market -- can be manufactured entirely in the US. This has been broadly dismissed by experts, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above, but also because an American-made iPhone could cost upward of $3,500. One report from 404 Media dubbed the idea "a pure fantasy." The overall sophistication and breadth of China's manufacturing sector has also been cited, with CEO Tim Cook stating in 2017 that the US lacks the number of tooling engineers to make its products. For more, see how tariffs might raise the prices of Apple products and find some expert tips for saving money.
