Synopsis: The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Trump-era tariffs could trigger up to USD 175 billion in refunds, largely benefiting companies rather than consumers. Since firms had already passed most tariff costs into prices, refunds may boost cash flows and margins, creating a potential “double gain” while prices remain largely unchanged.
A landmark court ruling has quietly set off one of the biggest financial reversals in recent trade history, with billions of dollars now caught in a complex legal and economic maze. What looks like a policy setback on the surface could end up reshaping corporate balance sheets, pricing dynamics, and investor expectations in ways few anticipated.
The Meltdown
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, February 20, 2026, struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that were imposed under a law designed for national emergencies, delivering a major setback to one of his most controversial uses of executive power. In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld a lower court decision that found Trump had exceeded his authority by using the 1977 law to impose broad import taxes. The case was brought by businesses affected by the tariffs along with 12 U.S. states, most of them led by Democratic governors, challenging what they called an unprecedented move to unilaterally impose tariffs.
Tariffs have been a central economic and foreign policy tool for Trump, who had projected that they would generate trillions of dollars in revenue over the next decade for the United States, the world’s largest economy.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to levy taxes and tariffs rests with Congress, not the President. However, Trump relied on IEEPA, which allows a president to regulate commerce during a national emergency, to impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners without congressional approval.
He became the first president to use the law in this way. Some additional tariffs imposed under other laws are not part of this case and account for roughly one-third of the total tariff revenue based on government data from October to mid-December. Trump had argued that the tariffs were critical for economic security, warning that without them the United States would be at a disadvantage and exploited by other countries, including China.
Within hours of the ruling, Trump moved quickly to replace the invalidated measures by announcing a temporary 10 percent global import duty for 150 days and ordering new investigations under other legal provisions that could allow tariffs to be reimposed. The next day, he raised the worldwide tariff to 15 percent with immediate effect, signalling that despite the legal setback, trade tensions remain elevated.
The administration is relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that has never been used before, which allows the president to impose a levy of up to 15 percent for 150 days. After that period, congressional approval would be required. Trump said his administration would use this window to develop new tariffs that are legally permissible.
USD 175 Billion In Refunds
The Supreme Court ruling has raised hopes among consumers that they could be compensated for the higher prices they paid when companies passed on tariff costs. But that outcome appears unlikely. While the Trump administration has promised refunds of duties collected, neither the administration nor the court has clarified how the process would work or who would ultimately receive the money.
The scale of potential repayments is enormous. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimates that refunds linked to the struck-down tariffs could total around 175 billion dollars. However, current indications suggest that most of this money would flow back to companies rather than consumers, with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressing skepticism that ordinary Americans will receive direct compensation.
Despite the massive sums involved, the court did not outline a mechanism for returning the money. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that the refund process could become complicated and messy. Legal experts told the Associated Press that importers will likely eventually receive their money back, but delays are expected as authorities determine how to implement repayments.
Trump himself acknowledged that the issue could take years to resolve, saying the matter may be litigated for the next two years and that court proceedings could stretch to five years. His comments mark a sharp contrast to earlier statements last year when he said millions of Americans could receive a small rebate because of the large tariff revenues being collected.
Legal experts say guidance could eventually come from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Court of International Trade in New York, and other lower courts. Trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu noted that while some form of refund mechanism is likely given how decisively the Supreme Court rejected the tariffs, the process could be difficult because of the large sums involved. Trade lawyer Dave Townsend added that the Customs agency already has refund procedures for cases where importers can prove errors and may adapt them for the tariff repayments.
An example exists from the 1990s, when courts ruled a harbor maintenance fee on exports unconstitutional and created a system for exporters to apply for refunds. However, Adetutu, cautioned that the government has little incentive to move quickly and could make the process difficult, potentially forcing importers to go to court to recover their money.
How Could Tariff Refunds Turn Into A Double Gain For Companies?
When the tariffs were introduced, many expected foreign exporters to bear most of the cost. But the data shows the opposite. A study by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, which looked at nearly USD 4 trillion of shipments between January 2024 and November 2025, found that American consumers and importers paid almost all of the cost. Foreign exporters absorbed only about 4 percent, while around 96 percent was passed on to US buyers. In simple terms, tariffs worked like a tax at home, with companies raising prices and Americans paying more.
Over time, more of these costs showed up in prices. By late 2025, about 63 percent of tariffs had been passed through to prices of core imported goods, while pass-through to durable goods like machinery and equipment reached about 96 percent. These numbers were higher than earlier estimates, showing that higher costs slowly became part of normal pricing. This is why prices often stay high even when policies change, because businesses and consumers get used to a new price level.
Now that courts have ruled the tariffs unlawful, attention has shifted to refunds. Refund liabilities are estimated at around USD 175 billion, while US Customs data shows about USD 133 billion has already been collected. If legal battles over the tariffs stretch for several years, companies are unlikely to quickly change their prices. Many businesses have already adjusted their contracts, supply chains, and pricing strategies to account for the higher costs that tariffs created. Over time, these higher prices become the new normal in the market, as customers get used to paying more and companies plan their operations around those levels. Because of this, even if tariffs are eventually struck down, prices may not immediately fall, especially if there is still uncertainty about the final outcome of court cases.
When refunds are eventually paid, the money would go back mainly to the companies that originally paid the tariffs. If these firms have already recovered most of the cost through higher prices over the past few years, the refunds would effectively act as extra cash coming into the business. This can improve company balance sheets, increase profits, or be used to pay down debt or invest in growth. In simple terms, companies would have already protected their margins during the tariff period and then received money back later, strengthening their financial position without needing to lower prices right away.
This is why the situation is often described as a potential “double gain.” Companies could benefit first by maintaining higher margins while tariffs were in place, and then benefit again when refunds arrive. However, the impact will not be the same across all industries. In highly competitive markets, companies may eventually reduce prices to attract customers, which would limit extra profits. But in sectors with strong pricing power or fewer competitors, businesses may be able to hold on to higher margins for longer, meaning some firms could emerge as clear winners while others simply recover earlier costs.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruling has changed the direction of the tariff story, but its financial effects are still unfolding. While consumers are unlikely to get any direct relief, companies could end up benefiting the most if refunds are paid after years of legal battles. The situation shows how policy decisions can have long-lasting effects on prices and profits, and how reversing them can create unexpected outcomes. What started as a move to protect the economy could end up leaving companies with stronger cash flows while consumers see little change.
For investors, it also raises a bigger question, was this tariff cycle simply a policy experiment that shifted costs onto consumers while boosting corporate profits, or just another reminder of how complex trade decisions can reshape markets in ways few expect?
Disclaimer: The views and investment tips expressed by investment experts/broking houses/rating agencies on tradebrains.in are their own, and not that of the website or its management. Investing in equities poses a risk of financial losses. Investors must therefore exercise due caution while investing or trading in stocks. Trade Brains Technologies Private Limited or the author are not liable for any losses caused as a result of the decision based on this article. Please consult your investment advisor before investing.
