The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a decisive judgment limiting presidential use of a 1977 emergency statute to impose sweeping reciprocal tariffs, finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the actions taken last year. The court's opinion was issued by a 6-3 majority.
President Trump criticized the ruling, calling it "deeply disappointing" and "a disgrace to our nation" and suggesting the justices had been "swayed by foreign interests." The president said the tariffs would nonetheless remain in place under alternative statutes, and that the administration would apply a new global 10% levy.
With U.S. importers paying billions each month in tariffs, the court's decision carries substantial consequences for trade and corporate planning. The opinion itself did not resolve whether the government must refund tariffs already collected under the IEEPA authority.
Wall Street responded to the decision with gains for major indexes. Popular exchange-traded funds that follow the S&P 500 include SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSE:SPY), Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSE:VOO), and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (NYSE:IVV).
Below is a compilation of prominent reactions from economists, strategists and industry analysts to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan
"Given the statements made by various administration officials, a reasonable base case is that the administration will use the various legal authorities to leave unchanged the average effective tariff rate facing U.S. purchasers.That said, even this outcome would entail a significant realignment of tariffs placed on different products from different countries, thereby creating winners and losers. This would also mean a material increase in trade policy uncertainty, creating a new headwind to capex.
While the U.S. economy clearly performed better than feared after liberation day, non-tech capex contracted last year, a very rare occurrence outside of a recession."
Feroli highlights two linked effects: even if the average protection level remains similar, a shift in how tariffs are allocated across products and trading partners can create sectoral winners and losers and raise uncertainty for capital expenditures.
Zak Stambor, principal analyst at Emarketer
"The Supreme Court’s ruling that President Trump lacks emergency authority to impose many of his administration’s tariffs removes one arrow from the administration’s quiver, but it doesn’t disarm it. While the decision provides some near-term relief, it does not eliminate the broader trade policy uncertainty facing retailers and brands.
We expect the ruling to create a modest tailwind for retail sales beginning this year, though that benefit will gradually fade by 2028. We now forecast retail sales will grow 3.5% to $7.78 trillion this year, roughly $13 billion above our previous outlook.
While that topline lift appears modest, the gains will likely be concentrated in import-heavy discretionary categories where pricing pressure has been most acute. We expect more pronounced upside in computers and consumer electronics, apparel and footwear, and furniture and home furnishings."
Stambor's forecast points to a narrow set of retail categories that could see the most benefit, particularly those with high import content and tight pricing pressure.
Glen Smith, chief investment officer at GDS Wealth Management
"The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s tariffs, which removes a significant layer of uncertainty and friction from the markets, which only 10-months ago experienced their fastest correction since the March 2020 Covid pandemic because of tariff fears.This may very well be the catalyst that the stock market needs to move out of the narrow trading range that it has been in so far in 2026. While it’s been several months since stocks reacted meaningfully to tariff news, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this has been a key uncertainty for stocks since Liberation Day last April, and that uncertainty has now been lifted.
We would not be making any changes to an investment portfolio based on the Supreme Court striking down the tariffs, but it’s an important reminder about how stocks and markets adapt over time and adjust to new normals."
Smith views the court opinion as a potential catalyst for equities, but says it does not warrant immediate portfolio changes.
Mohamed El-Erian, former CEO of PIMCO
"Who owns what to whom?
This question about the IEEPA Supreme Court ruling impacting $133 billion of possible tariff refunds is being actively debated in many places, and soon in the courts.
There are also lots of questions about how the tariff regime will evolve as the Administration pursues at least three alternative legal paths. Even if the overall tariff collection remains the same by the end of the year, as suggested by Secretary Bessent, the incidence on companies and sectors may be quite different."
El-Erian flags legal and fiscal uncertainties tied to the ruling, including the contested possibility of refunds and how revenue burdens might shift across firms and industries if alternative authorities are used.
Gina Bolvin, president of Bolvin Wealth Management Group
"The market reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump-era tariffs was muted, suggesting it was largely priced in. Because IEEPA tariffs accounted for about 60% of those imposed, the decision’s economic impact is limited. Retail stocks are benefiting from expectations of lower cost pressures.The ruling also supports inflation expectations and increases the likelihood of rate cuts as tariff-related headwinds ease—making it a win for businesses and consumers alike."
Bolvin emphasizes that the decision's economic bite may be restrained because a majority of the tariffs had been imposed under IEEPA, and that markets appeared to have anticipated the outcome to some extent.
Jeff Buchbinder, chief equity strategist at LPL Financial
"We would fade a short-term bounce on the Supreme Court ruling because the Trump administration will quickly pivot to different legal grounds for replacement tariffs while deficits go higher in the interim. However, if lower tariffs help cool inflation, it could firm up expectations for Fed rate cuts later this year."
Buchbinder highlights the tension between a likely administrative response and the potential for lower tariffs to ease inflation and influence monetary policy expectations.
Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group
"The Supreme Court decision will pave the way for accelerated rate cuts as inflation expectations from tariffs are now less of a factor. The looming question is what new authority the Administration will use to salvage some of the tariff revenue."
Cox suggests the ruling reduces one component of tariff-driven inflation expectations, while underscoring uncertainty about which legal path the administration might adopt next.
The court's ruling narrows one legal avenue for tariff policy but leaves several open questions that market participants and affected industries will watch closely: whether refunds are required, how alternative statutes will be used to sustain tariff levels, and how the distribution of tariff incidence across products and sectors may shift. Those questions underpin the range of reactions from economists, asset managers and retail analysts, and will inform how companies and investors reassess pricing, capex and supply-chain strategies in the weeks and months ahead.