The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s tariffs Friday, ruling 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the president authority to impose import taxes — a power that belongs to Congress. Within hours, Trump announced plans to impose a 10% tariff on all imports for 150 days and said he would explore other legal mechanisms to restore the duties. The ruling left businesses across industries facing what they described as a prolonged period of uncertainty.

While the decision provides potential relief from tariffs estimated at $133 billion to $175 billion, widespread questions remain about how much of that money companies and consumers will actually recover, and whether Trump’s alternative tariff proposals will ultimately prove as costly as the measures the court invalidated.

The Ruling and What Comes Next

The Supreme Court’s decision, issued Friday, turned on a narrow legal question: whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act granted the president power to impose tariffs unilaterally. The 6-3 majority ruled it did not, holding that Congress possesses the power to tax imports.

Trump responded swiftly, pledging to impose a 10% tariff on all imports lasting 150 days under what he said was a different legal authority. He also said the administration would explore other mechanisms to impose additional tariffs on countries he characterized as engaging in unfair trade practices.

“Any boost to the economy from lowering tariffs in the near-term is likely to be partly offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty,” said Michael Pearce, an economist at Oxford Economics. “With the administration likely to rebuild tariffs through other, more durable, means, the overall tariffs rate may yet end up settling close to current levels.”

The Clawback Question

Efforts to recover the estimated $133 billion to $175 billion in previously collected tariffs now deemed illegal will be complicated and asymmetrical. Lawyers expect larger companies with legal resources to move quickly; smaller businesses and individual consumers are unlikely to pursue refunds.

The Supreme Court ruling did not address how the refund process would operate. Dave French, executive vice president of government relations for the National Retail Federation, said he hoped lower courts would ensure “a seamless process” to handle claims.

Retail, Technology, and Agriculture Weigh In

The Business Roundtable, representing more than 200 U.S. companies, released a statement encouraging the administration to limit future tariffs to specific unfair trade practices and national security concerns. The retail sector — which has absorbed tariff costs, cut expenses, and diversified supply networks to offset the impact — cautioned that any new tariffs would compound existing cost pressures on shoppers already sensitive to inflation.

For the technology sector, the ruling offered potential relief. Many of its products are built overseas or depend on imported components. Jonathan McHale, vice president for digital trade at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said: “With this decision behind us, we look forward to bringing more stability to trade policy.”

Agricultural groups also welcomed the ruling but voiced concern about future action. Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said: “We strongly encourage the president to avoid using any other available authorities to impose tariffs on agricultural inputs that would further increase costs.”

Industries That See No Relief

But significant gaps remain. The Supreme Court’s decision applies only to tariffs imposed under the IEEPA, leaving intact tariffs on steel, upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and bathroom vanities, according to the Home Furnishings Association, which represents 15,000 furniture stores in North America.

Josh Deth, managing partner at Revolution Brewing in Chicago, said the aluminum cost for beer cans now rivals the cost of ingredients inside them because of tariffs on metals not affected by the ruling. “Everything kind of adds up,” he said. “The beverage industry needs relief here. We’re getting crushed by the prices of aluminum.”

Ron Kurnik, owner of Superior Coffee Roasting Co. in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, faced both U.S. tariffs and retaliatory tariffs from Canada on his coffee exports. His company raised prices by 6% twice since tariffs took effect. “It’s like a nightmare we just want to wake up from,” Kurnik said, adding that he does not expect a refund despite the ruling.

Daniel Posner, owner of Grapes The Wine Co. in White Plains, New York, noted the uncertainty around timing. Wine shipments take about two weeks to cross the Atlantic. “We’re reactive to what’s become a very unstable situation,” he said, noting questions about whether shipments already in transit would face the newly announced 10% tariff.

International Skepticism

Overseas reactions centered on uncertainty and concern about future tariff threats. The U.S. is Italy’s largest wine market, with sales having tripled in value over the past 20 years. Lamberto Frescobaldi, president of UIV, which represents more than 800 Italian winemakers, said: “There is a more than likely risk that tariffs will be reimposed through alternative legal channels, compounded by the uncertainty this ruling may generate in commercial relations between Europe and the United States.”

In Europe, economists cautioned that the decision would provide no lasting relief. Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING bank, said: “Europe should not be mistaken, this ruling will not bring relief. The legal authority may be different, but the economic impact could be identical or worse.”

The Path Forward

With Trump signaling determination to maintain tariffs through alternative legal authorities, many businesses have begun bracing for extended court battles and regulatory uncertainty. Jay Foreman, CEO of Basic Fun — a Florida-based maker of toys including Lincoln Logs and Tonka trucks — said he does not expect the new tariffs to affect toys directly. Still, he said, “I do worry about some type of perpetual fight over this, at least for the next three years.”

The ruling did not resolve how refunds would be distributed or whether companies could recover sums already paid. The structural advantage of larger companies over smaller ones — and the practical impossibility of refunding individual consumers — appears likely to persist absent legislative action by Congress.