Federal Court Blocks Trump Tariffs That Could Have Pushed iPhone Prices to Over $4,000

[sentiblue]

Whoever wrote this article doesn't know a thing about tariffs.

Tariffs are calculated as a percentage of the "declared value" NOT of the retail value. The declared value of the iPhone is only around $150-200. Pretty much that's the value of what it costs to make the item. So even if the tariffs was at 200%, it only increase by $300-400. Now Apple can choose to increase the retail price to compensate that additional cost, or they can simple accept to sell at the same price and get less profit. If Apple was to do what the article suggests and sell their phone at $4K, every executive will be prosecuted for price gouging and discriminatory pricing.

 

[seek3r]

Take a look and read what the CIT is basing their decision on. I took the time to read and came away with “WTF is the CIT thinking?!”. They met none of the standard reqs for this type of a decision.
IMO, the CIT is seriously in over their head.

They said Trump doesnt meet the criteria of a national emergency that allows him to use emergency powers congress delegated to enact tariffs that are typically congressional responsibility under article 1 sections 1 and 8 and thus needs congressional approval which he doesnt have, what exactly do you disagree with?

 

[BaldiMac]

Whoever wrote this article doesn't know a thing about tariffs.

Tariffs are calculated as a percentage of the "declared value" NOT of the retail value. The declared value of the iPhone is only around $150-200. Pretty much that's the value of what it costs to make the item. So even if the tariffs was at 200%, it only increase by $300-400. Now Apple can choose to increase the retail price to compensate that additional cost, or they can simple accept to sell at the same price and get less profit. If Apple was to do what the article suggests and sell their phone at $4K, every executive will be prosecuted for price gouging and discriminatory pricing.

You're absolutely right on your larger point and your total increase, but the $4K was based on an iPhone 16 Pro Max (1TB) with 145% tariff rate. The cost to make them is estimated around $6-700. So up to $1,015 after the tariff. Throw in licensing fees and the same profit per device ($1,599 - $700 =$899.00) and you'd get $1,914. Of course, Apple might charge significantly differently since they'd be selling fewer at lower margins.

 

[racer1441]

You're absolutely right on your larger point and your total increase, but the $4K was based on an iPhone 16 Pro Max (1TB) with 145% tariff rate. The cost to make them is estimated around $6-700. So up to $1,015 after the tariff. Throw in licensing fees and the same profit per device ($1,599 - $700 =$899.00) and you'd get $1,914. Of course, Apple might charge significantly differently since they'd be selling fewer at lower margins.

Yep. $100’s of dollars for $25 of storage would be a thing of the past.

 

[Mr. Jenkins]

I know, right? It’s almost as if the other guy ignored SCOTUS and used taxpayers money to pay off student loans when he was ordered not to. Why have lower or higher courts when nobody listens to what they’re told anyways

The student loan case wasn't about the broad powers to forgive student loans that may exist in any and all statutes. The President wasn't ordered to not stop forgiving student loans at all. He was stopped from implementing one loan forgiveness policy that rested on one statute, the HEROES Act. However, just because he was stopped from using the HEROES Act to forgive loans, it doesn't mean the power to forgive student loans doesn't exist in other statutes, like the Higher Education Act or the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Those other statutes weren't litigated so he wasn't stopped from giving student debt relief under those statutes.

Similarly, the current President was stopped from implementing these tariffs under IEEPA, but that doesn't mean he has no powers to impose tariffs at all under other statutes. He'd just have to find some authority in another statute to implement tariffs. It's also similar to the deportations. If a court rules that a group of people can't be expeditiously deported under Alien Enemies Act, that doesn't stop that same group from being detained and deported under the INA.

 

[Rodan52]

"TACO's" again, still I'm glad I opted to buy an iPhone 16e in March.

 

[Rodan52]

Trump certainly didn’t, he thought “they’ll just start making it in USA!”

But the reality was - that could lead to an $4000 iPhone. The reason this didn’t happen is that USA still has a functioning system: one that Trump is actively trying to bypass or destroy. So, watch as the impossible slowly becomes possible, or even likely - unless something changes.

Who or what could manufacture and assemble an iPhone in the US for the same price that China does? Does the US even have a domestic electronics manufacturing industry any more?

 

[It’s always something]

Who or what could manufacture and assemble an iPhone in the US for the same price that China does? Does the US even have a domestic electronics manufacturing industry any more?

There’s Texas Instruments… 🤷‍♂️

 

[Rodan52]

There’s Texas Instruments… 🤷‍♂️

Do they actually have an assembly line setup or do they contract out O/S?

 

[It’s always something]

Do they actually have an assembly line setup or do they contract out O/S?

They do chip fab these days, at least mostly, but not on the tiny scale (2 or 3nm) that Apple requires. They have customers all over the world.

Edit to add link to their site: they do make a variety of products (not just chips); I was mistaken.

 

[dk001]

They said Trump doesnt meet the criteria of a national emergency that allows him to use emergency powers congress delegated to enact tariffs that are typically congressional responsibility under article 1 sections 1 and 8 and thus needs congressional approval which he doesnt have, what exactly do you disagree with?

When you read the decision by the CIT, they ignored and apparently never considered the Equitable Requirements in their conclusion. It reads more like they substituted their definition of “National Emergency” for the President’s (which is not allowed by Judiciary, that is the job of Congress) and disregarded the statements by the SoS, SoT, and others.

Not surprised the CoA came back so fast with a stay.

 

[seek3r]

When you read the decision by the CIT, they ignored and apparently never considered the Equitable Requirements in their conclusion. It reads more like they substituted their definition of “National Emergency” for the President’s (which is not allowed by Judiciary, that is the job of Congress) and disregarded the statements by the SoS, SoT, and others.

Not surprised the CoA came back so fast with a stay.

The CoA came back with a stay because it’s easier to maintain the status quo than reverse a reversal while they consider, it’s typical in *any* case like this…

And I cant imagine what equitable requirements you think needed to be considered

 

[Jetscreamer]

That's actually the exact opposite of how a dictatorship works, but don't let being accurate get in the way of being dramatic.

That’s exactly how dictatorship works, you installed a bunch of tRUMP stooges and lapdogs to the highest court in the land. Their job now is to rubber stamp everything he wants.

 

[dk001]

The CoA came back with a stay because it’s easier to maintain the status quo than reverse a reversal while they consider, it’s typical in *any* case like this…

And I cant imagine what equitable requirements you think needed to be considered

You may be right but I have to disagree. If the CIT had limited their ruling to just the plaintiff, maybe. Not seeing why they made it a “global”. That aspect makes little sense based on the complete lack of investigation/analysis.

I’ll be very surprised if the CIT ruling doesn’t gets completely overturned.

 

[seek3r]

I’ll be very surprised if the CIT ruling doesn’t gets completely overturned.

I’ll bet you $100 right now the ruling is upheld. Trump might manage to wiggle in his tariffs in another way (as he has with some of them and section 232), but not this way

 

[dk001]

I’ll bet you $100 right now the ruling is upheld. Trump might manage to wiggle in his tariffs in another way (as he has with some of them and section 232), but not this way

No bet but we’ll have to see. We each think we’ll be right.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

One wonders why we even have lower courts since a certain somebody doesn't seem to like them or accept their rulings. Just have the SCOTUS and DOGE all the lower courts.

This is a modern country, not an ancient village. 10 supreme judges to take care of all the nation's lawsuits, including the Joneses suing their neighbors for excessive noise? Are you kidding? Do you know how long it takes to process Social Security requests since the agency was doged? We need an efficient, first-world government, not a third-world one where you get no service and it takes forever to get anything done because the employees have been fired. Any company that provides its customers with the kind of service we've recently endured at the federal level would go bankrupt.

 

[ForkHandles]

If new iPhones were $4k, older iPhone resale value would surge. People would sell their older iPhones for more than they paid for them. Some would pay the difference for a new one, others would pocket the cash and downgrade to a cheaper phone.

I'd love to see Apple manufacture their products in the USA and I'd even pay the premium, but it might make me reconsider getting a new iPhone every year.

Everyone pays more for less!!!!!

You’re a genius!