Top associations of American businesses are demanding to be repaid for Donald Trump’s tariffs following Friday’s supreme court ruling.
The US National Retail Federation, which represents a number of US retailers, from Walmart to small brands and manufacturers, called for “a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers”.
“The refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their employees and their customers,” it said. The supreme court’s tariffs ruling puts Trump on notice with a bloody nose
The US Chamber of Commerce, too, called for the swift return of an estimated $133bn in collected tariffs covered by the ruling. Its chief policy officer, Neil Bradley, said, “Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year.
“We encourage the administration to use this opportunity to reset overall tariff policy in a manner that will lead to greater economic growth, larger wage gains for workers and lower costs for families,” he added.
The US Supreme Court had struck down former President Donald Trump’s tariffs, ruling they exceeded his presidential authority. The ruling, made on 20 February 2026, could require the US government to refund the $175 billion collected from these tariffs.
Court Ruling: A Major Defeat for Trump’s Tariff Policy
On 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling rejecting Trump’s imposition of tariffs, stating that his action violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This decision could significantly impact US economic relations globally.
READ ALSO:
WEF 2026: How Trump’s Trade Tariffs are Forcing New Global Alliances
Global Markets Reel as Trump’s Threat and Push to Control Greenland Sparks Tension
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasised that the IEEPA does not grant the President the sweeping power to impose tariffs, especially on such a large scale. The court also cited the “major questions doctrine”, which requires clear congressional authorisation for actions of vast economic significance like tariffs. The decision highlights the limits of executive authority and reinforces the separation of powers between the President and Congress.
Trump’s Use of Tariffs as a Political Tool
Trump’s tariffs, which he imposed under the IEEPA, were aimed at addressing trade imbalances and securing economic advantages for the US. The former President believed these tariffs were essential for national security, particularly in trade relations with countries like China, Mexico, and Canada. He argued that tariffs were necessary to counteract unfair trade practices and protect US industries.
The tariffs, announced in April 2025, were part of Trump’s broader economic strategy. However, the Supreme Court found that his actions breached the law, as IEEPA was designed for national emergencies, not for economic trade policies.
Potential Financial Consequences
The ruling could lead to the refund of over $175 billion collected from businesses and consumers due to the tariffs. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated the total sum collected by Trump’s tariffs and indicated that a refund may be necessary following the Supreme Court’s decision.
The tariffs, imposed on a broad range of imports, were expected to generate trillions of dollars in revenue for the US economy. However, with this landmark ruling, businesses that were affected by the tariffs are likely to demand reimbursement.
The Dissenting Justices
The three dissenting justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh — argued that the president should have more latitude in matters of trade, especially during times of economic uncertainty.
Despite their dissent, the majority of the court sided with the plaintiffs—small businesses and US states—who had challenged the tariffs in multiple lawsuits. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s actions were beyond the scope of his constitutional authority.
What Comes Next?
Following the ruling, the Trump administration has yet to comment officially. However, some officials within the administration have suggested they will explore alternative methods to retain as much of the tariff structure as possible through different legal frameworks.
Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent has stated that the US may turn to other legal justifications to implement tariffs, such as those related to national security or unfair trade practices. These options may not provide the same flexibility or immediacy as IEEPA.
Tariffs As a Political and Economic Weapon
The imposition of tariffs was central to Trump’s foreign policy during his second term, using tariffs to extract trade concessions and as a foreign policy lever. The Supreme Court’s decision could drastically alter how tariffs are used in the future, requiring clear congressional authorisation for tariffs that carry significant economic implications.
Trump has maintained that without these tariffs, the US would be vulnerable to exploitation by trading partners. However, with this legal setback, the future of tariffs as a tool for economic and political leverage is uncertain.
Sunday Michael Ogwu is a Nigerian journalist and editor of Pinnacle Daily. He is known for his work in business and economic reporting. He has held editorial roles in prominent Nigerian media outlets, where he has focused on economic policy, financial markets, and developmental issues affecting Nigeria and Africa more broadly.
