On Friday, the Supreme Court threw out President Donald Trump‘s signature emergency-law tariffs, but it did not spell out how the federal government should return the $133 billion already collected from importers. On Saturday, Trump signaled he would try to keep pressure on global trade with a new 15% worldwide rate, a move he framed as new 15% tariff after attacking the ruling.
Associated Press reports the justices invalidated Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying the statute does not hand presidents the power to tax imports. That leaves companies that paid the duties pushing for repayment, while the mechanics of a mass refund effort remain unsettled.
How Will Companies Navigate Refund Chaos?
Customs does have an established method to correct duty overpayments, and some attorneys think the agency could adapt that framework for these unlawful tariffs. Others expect a patchwork involving the Court of International Trade in New York and additional lower-court rulings.
Major importers moved early to preserve their place in line, including Costco, Revlon and Bumble Bee Foods, which filed suits seeking refunds before the Supreme Court ruled. Lawyers also anticipate follow-on disputes, including manufacturers trying to claim part of any refunds if suppliers raised input prices to cover tariff costs.
The tension between court-imposed limits and Trump’s next-step tariffs is also playing out in public opinion data. A YouGov poll found 60% of Americans backed the Supreme Court’s move, and 66% said they have noticed prices rising for goods, including 88% of Democrats and 68% of independents.
Trump has argued tariffs improve U.S. trade outcomes, including pointing to what he described as a sharp trade-deficit improvement after an April 2025 rollout. Official data later showed the deficit up 95% by November 2025, adding to questions about how the strategy is working.
Supreme Court Ruling Upends Trump’s Tariff Strategy
The decision was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority, and it marked the court’s rejection of Trump’s attempt to impose broad, double-digit levies on most countries. Two of the three justices Trump appointed sided with the majority.
Even as the refund question hangs, Trump has tried to route around the court’s limits by pointing to other legal tools, including Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act for a temporary global tariff that could run up to 150 days. He also said his administration would spend the next few months setting new tariff schedules he views as legally defensible.
Trade lawyers expect importers eventually get paid back, but not quickly, and the bill is large enough to strain the system used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TD Securities has estimated a 12-to-18-month timeline for refunds to reach companies.
Public Discontent Fuels Economic Debate
This ruling aligns with recent public sentiment, as a YouGov poll revealed that 74% of respondents blame Trump’s tariffs for the surge in inflation, further complicating his economic narrative. With 66% of Americans noting increased prices for goods, this discontent could have significant implications for the upcoming midterms, potentially shaping how Republican candidates approach economic issues.
The Supreme Court’s decision, which follows Trump’s claims of a trade deficit reduction that were later contradicted by data showing a 95% increase by November 2025, underscores the disconnect between his assertions and economic realities. This evolving public opinion highlights the challenges Trump faces as he attempts to implement new tariffs without congressional approval.
Inflation And Tariffs: The Costs Consumers Face
Consumers are unlikely to receive checks tied to the tariffs because higher shelf prices are hard to trace to a specific duty line, according to the news outlet. Economists and trade analysts have separately estimated that close to 90% of tariff costs are borne domestically by U.S. companies and shoppers rather than overseas exporters.
States are also trying to recover what they say residents paid through higher prices, with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker seeking money for 5.11 million households and Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine requesting $2.1 billion. Conine said, “As Nevada’s chief investment officer, I have a responsibility to try to recoup every single dollar that the Trump Administration takes from Nevada families.”
Recent Comments