Don’t expect lower prices now that the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump’s tariffs

Andrew Keshner

Sat, February 21, 2026 at 10:05 AM GMT+9 5 min read

Here’s what the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s tariffs may mean for Americans’ wallets. - MarketWatch photo illustration/iStockphoto, Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs is a massive blow to the president’s agenda. But for cost-conscious consumers, the immediate impact could be further economic uncertainty, with few price cuts in store.

Ahead of the high court’s 6-3 decision that Trump lacked the power to impose a sweeping array of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, economic researchers as well as public-opinion surveys found that consumers were paying more due to the levies.

Most Read from MarketWatch

The S&P 500 is undergoing a historic shift that could reshape the stock market

Here’s what’s driving the U.S. dollar to its strongest position in almost a month — and it’s not just Iran tensions

What a fiasco. Trump’s tariffs are an economic and legal mess.

Trump called the court’s decision “deeply disappointing” at a Friday press conference. Yet he repeatedly stressed that he has the power to impose other tariffs in order to spur domestic manufacturing and jobs.

The president announced a 10% global tariff based on a different authority and said he would pursue trade investigations to potentially justify additional levies. The tariffs that do remain in place are now on firm legal ground, he said, and the ruling removed unresolved legal questions. “Great certainty has been brought back to the economy of the United States, and actually the economy of the world,” Trump said.

With the Trump administration poised to dial up remaining tariffs after the decision, experts say companies face too much uncertainty to cut their prices.

In other words, affordability was the watchword before the Supreme Court’s decision, and it remains so.

Households were paying approximately $1,681 extra per year because of the tariffs, said Martha Gimbel, executive director and co-founder of the Yale Budget Lab.

“This ruling does not resolve economic uncertainty. If anything, it increased economic uncertainty,” said Gimbel.

With the new batch of levies, households could possibly pay approximately $1,200 annually due to tariffs, according to updated Yale Budget Lab projections.

Even though a wide swath of tariffs have been struck down, it will not translate into a price cut for consumers, she noted. “What we’ve seen historically is when tariffs come down, if prices increase, they don’t come down,” Gimbel told MarketWatch.

Why is that?

Unless there’s some outside push, like a new competitor, businesses will not cut prices that customers have grown accustomed to paying, she said — and that’s especially the case here. “Particularly if a business thinks more tariffs are coming, why would they lower them just to have to raise them again?” Gimbel added.

Story Continues  

The court’s decision wiped out more than 60% of last year’s tariffs, according to Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economics at Fitch Ratings. It roughly halved the nation’s effective tariff rate and could shrink yearly tariff revenue by approximately $200 billion, he said.

It remains to be seen whether there could be price cuts in some sectors. “The decision could lower prices for goods where tariff pass-through has been meaningful — toys and the like come to mind,” Sonola said, referring to sectors where companies passed on the costs of tariffs to their customers. It could also be a profit win for the companies that ate the levies, he noted.

Nevertheless, he said, “tariffs are likely to return in some form, so firms may be reluctant to cut prices until there’s greater certainty about where tariff rates ultimately settle. This could be a lengthy process.”

The decision’s big-picture impact will grow clearer in the coming weeks and months, said Andrew Siciliano, the tax partner heading up KPMG’s trade and customs practice. “The impact on consumer prices will depend on how quickly businesses adjust and whether the administration pursues alternative tariff measures,” he said.

But a lot remains to be seen. The long-term impact “will hinge on how the situation evolves, and we are monitoring developments day by day,” Siciliano said.

According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, “immediate implications of tariff reversal are likely to result in retroactive refunds, not future price relief.” Experts at the firm said the tariff costs for goods coming from the European Union, Japan or South Korea, or goods that fall under trade deals with Mexico and Canada, may see “little to no change in tariff treatment.”

What about refunds for consumers?

Another thing that’s likely to be messy and lengthy is any process of reimbursing money that companies paid to the U.S. government under the now invalid tariffs. The Supreme Court decision opened up a massive question about refunds that could be worth somewhere between $100 billion and $130 billion by one count. A different estimate found that the refunds might total $175 billion.

Trump said the Supreme Court’s decision raised an immediate question about refunds, but the judges never answered it. “It’s not discussed,” he responded to a reporter who asked how refunds to companies could play out, adding: “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

It’s not likely that any refund money will flow back to customers, according to Gimbel. The money would likely go to businesses and importers instead. “Any tariff passed on to consumers, the consumer will have to eat,” she said.

The refunds should go to consumers, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and fierce Trump critic. In the refund rush, “giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves,” she in a statement Friday. “It’s one more example of how the game is rigged.”

JOIN THE DON’T SHORT YOURSELF LIVE Q&A

Most Read from MarketWatch

‘Many politicians work well into their 80s’: I’m 71 and earn $300K for a Fortune 200 company. Do I work until I’m 75?

This once-hot cancer-detection company’s stock got cut in half after a failed trial

The sobering way most Americans plan to use their tax refunds this year

Terms and Privacy Policy

Privacy Dashboard

More Info