The Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's global tariffs today, invalidating what the administration called its signature economic policy. The justices ruled that Trump lacked legal authority to impose sweeping import duties on nearly everything the U.S. buys from abroad.
The ruling creates immediate uncertainty for American businesses and consumers. A Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimate says up to $175 billion in tariff revenue collected from importers could be subject to refunds, though the final amount is uncertain. But the Supreme Court offered no guidance on how those refunds would actually happen, leaving companies uncertain whether they will ever see their money back.
For the past year, Trump's tariffs rippled through the economy. Many retailers, manufacturers, restaurants, and importers absorbed higher costs and, where possible, passed part of the increase to consumers. Furniture retailers faced high duties. Wine importers, toy makers, and electronics companies all sued to challenge the levies.
Now that the tariffs are struck down, some prices could fall. But existing inventory, contract terms, or new tariffs may keep many items from getting cheaper. The administration announced it will impose new tariffs using different legal tools, potentially offsetting any price decreases. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for "swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs" and a reset on tariff policy.
Within hours of the decision, Trump announced he would sign an executive order imposing a 10 percent global tariff. Trump also said the administration would pursue tariffs under other existing trade authorities, including provisions used to target China and steel and aluminum imports. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged the administration would return to the previous tariff level through these alternative mechanisms.
The president's response was sharp. He called the Supreme Court justices "disloyal" and "unpatriotic." He also said he was "absolutely ashamed" of certain members. He told governors the decision was "a disgrace."
The real uncertainty now centers on refunds. Companies including Learning Resources have sued seeking reimbursement for tariffs paid over the past year. But the process will be lengthy and complex, with no clear timeline or mechanism established by the court.
In a dissent that does not control the outcome, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that "the Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers." Several justices questioned during oral argument how a refund process would work, but the majority opinion offered no roadmap.
Some businesses say they are cautious about expecting full refunds while the process remains undefined.
The National Retail Federation urged the administration to ensure a "seamless process" for refunds. Small Business Majority CEO John Arensmeyer said the decision was "critically important because small businesses can do very little to avoid the rapidly rising costs of goods that result from tariffs."
The case was brought by Learning Resources, a toy manufacturer, and other importers and retailers who challenged tariffs threatening their supply chains and bottom lines. Michael McConnell, a former federal judge who led the legal challenge, called the ruling a vindication of constitutional limits on presidential power. Justice Kavanaugh's dissent argued that the tariff authority derived from existing trade law, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation.
Major stock indexes closed higher after the decision, with furniture stocks among the leaders, though the gains were smaller than some traders expected.
The decision affects trade deals Trump announced earlier this year. Brazil's Vice President Geraldo Alckmin said the ruling "restores competitiveness" to his country. Reuters analysts warn that China is now less likely to buy U.S. soy and other agricultural products, given the uncertainty around future tariff policy.
The dollar slipped and bond yields edged higher, moves that analysts partly linked to the ruling amid other market forces. Companies face potential new tariffs under different legal authorities, prolonging the sourcing paralysis that has gripped supply chains since Trump took office.
For the many businesses that paid tariffs over the past year, the next paycheck depends on a refund process that neither the Supreme Court nor the Trump administration has mapped out.
The Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's global tariffs on Friday, invalidating what the administration called its signature economic policy. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that Trump lacked legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a 1977 law designed for national security crises—to impose sweeping import duties on nearly everything the U.S. buys from abroad.
The ruling creates immediate chaos for American businesses and consumers. Over $175 billion in tariff revenue collected from importers over the past year is now potentially subject to refunds, according to Penn Wharton Budget Model economists. But the Supreme Court offered no guidance on how those refunds would actually happen, leaving companies uncertain whether they will ever see their money back.
For the past year, Trump's tariffs have rippled through the economy. Retailers, manufacturers, restaurants, and importers all absorbed higher costs and passed them to consumers. The National Restaurant Association reported that tariffs strained more than 60 percent of restaurant operators. Furniture retailers faced crushing duties. Wine importers, toy makers, and electronics companies all sued to challenge the levies.
Now that the tariffs are struck down, prices should theoretically fall. But that relief is far from guaranteed. The administration has already signaled it will impose new tariffs using different legal tools, potentially keeping costs elevated indefinitely. Businesses are celebrating quietly—some fear angering Trump if they appear too happy about the ruling.
Within hours of the decision, Trump announced he would sign an executive order imposing a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows the president to impose tariffs up to 15 percent for 150 days to address trade deficits or currency crises—but only with a time limit and congressional approval if extended beyond that window.
Trump also said the administration would pursue tariffs under other existing trade authorities, including provisions used to target China and steel and aluminum imports. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged the administration would return to "the same tariff level" through these alternative mechanisms.
The president's response was furious. He called the Supreme Court justices "disloyal" and "unpatriotic," saying he was "absolutely ashamed" of certain members—including two justices he had appointed in his first term. He told governors the decision was "a disgrace."
The real uncertainty now centers on refunds. At least 1,000 companies have already sued seeking reimbursement for tariffs paid over the past year. Capital Economics estimates refunds could total around $120 billion. But the process will be lengthy and complex, with no clear timeline or mechanism established by the court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his dissent that "the Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers." Justice Amy Coney Barrett had warned during oral arguments that the refund process would be "a mess."
Businesses are not counting on getting their money back. Juan Pellerano-Rendón, a logistics expert at commerce advisory Swap, said: "I would say no business owner is genuinely expecting a refund at this point, just knowing how this administration has managed tariffs, how they've been preparing for this exact scenario and knowing how arduous the process will likely be to actually receive those refunds."
Business groups hailed the ruling. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for "swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs" and a reset on tariff policy. The National Retail Federation urged the administration to ensure a "seamless process" for refunds. Small Business Majority CEO John Arensmeyer said the decision was "critically important because small businesses can do very little to avoid the rapidly rising costs of goods that result from tariffs."
The case was brought by Rick Woldenberg, owner of Learning Resources, a Chicago-based toy manufacturer. His small business challenged tariffs that threatened its supply chain and bottom line. Michael McConnell, a former federal judge who led the legal challenge, called the ruling a vindication of constitutional limits on presidential power.
Stock markets moved modestly higher after the decision. The S&P 500 rose about 0.5 percent. Furniture stocks surged—Wayfair rose more than 5 percent, RH gained 4 percent. But the muted response suggested investors had already priced in the possibility of the ruling or expected replacement tariffs to follow quickly.
The decision upends trade deals Trump announced earlier this year. Brazil's Vice President Geraldo Alckmin said the ruling "restores competitiveness" to his country. But analysts warn that China is now less likely to buy U.S. soy and other agricultural products, given the uncertainty around future tariff policy.
The dollar fell after the announcement. Bond yields rose, with 10-year Treasuries climbing to 4.09 percent. The ruling creates months of uncertainty ahead—companies face potential new tariffs under different legal authorities, prolonging the sourcing paralysis that has gripped supply chains since Trump took office.
For the 240,000 businesses that paid tariffs over the past year, the next paycheck depends on a refund process that neither the Supreme Court nor the Trump administration has mapped out.
Highlighted text was flagged by the council. Tap to see feedback.
