The Supreme Court’s striking down of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs, while a relief for many, heralds months of uncertainty as U.S. companies brace for new tariffs and a battle for refunds unfolds.
Long road to refund
The ruling sets in motion a long battle for tariff refunds, as the tariffs, now considered illegal, generated about $133.5 billion from January 2025 to mid-December.
The top court did not address the question of repayment, and analysts say this will be decided by lower courts in the coming months.
The US Court of International Trade is expected to rule this process, ING analysts Carsten Brzeski and Julian Geib said.
“Refunds do not come automatically as any importer who wants his money back has to sue individually,” they said.
“This process has already begun, with over 1,000 corporate entities now involved in a legal battle.”
Trump told reporters on Friday: “We’re going to end up in court for the next five years.”
More volatility
Hours after the court’s ruling, Trump promised to impose a new 10% tariff on imports under an alternative authority.
This is widely seen as a temporary move to pave the way for more sustainable tariffs, but will trigger other challenges and upheavals in the meantime.
The law Trump is using for this tariff — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — only allows for a 150-day tariff unless Congress extends it.
Trump has said there will be new investigations into unfair trade practices under Section 301, a path toward more permanent duties.
Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council, said Friday’s ruling merely “opens a new chapter” in Trump’s tariff policy.
There will be “more uncertainty, more volatility for companies to navigate and more burdensome trade agreements for countries to negotiate,” Lipsky added.
To lose speed
But for now, the court’s decision removes “one of Trump’s fastest tools to impose broad tariffs,” ING said.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News on Friday that tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “were tailored for President Trump to assert leverage” against other countries.
“We were able to bring them to the table very quickly,” he said.
“We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries,” promised Bessent. “It will just be in a less direct and slightly more involved way.”
Uncertainty in the trade agreement?
With tariffs imposed via emergency economic powers forming the basis of recent trade talks, analysts warned that some partners may seek to renegotiate their commitments.
Lipsky expects economies that have already entered into agreements to stick to them rather than “risk unraveling an agreement that has at least provided some stability.”
But those still closing deals may have more leverage now.
Asia Society Policy Institute senior vice president Wendy Cutler expects that walking away from announced deals “doesn’t appear to be in the cards for our partners.”
“They know all too well that such a move could end up leaving them in a worse position in the White House,” she said.
Lower rates?
With the Supreme Court ruling, consumers “face an overall average effective tariff rate of 9.1%, the highest since 1946, excluding 2025,” according to The Budget Lab at Yale University.
This is a decrease from 16.9 per cent.
Despite Trump’s plan to move toward more permanent duties, Nay Federal Credit Union Chief Economist Heather Long expects Friday’s decision “to force a reset on tariff policy.”
She predicts that this “is likely to lead to lower overall tariffs and a more orderly imposition of future tariffs.”
