By Isnaini Azizah 
The National Retail Federation (NRF), the world’s largest retail trade association, hailed the ruling as a critical victory for economic stability. In an official statement released shortly after the verdict, the NRF emphasized that the removal of these broad-based tariffs would provide "much-needed certainty" for U.S. businesses and manufacturers. The organization argued that the ruling would enable global supply chains to operate without the constant threat of sudden, unilateral cost hikes that have characterized the trade environment over the last several years. "Clear and consistent trade policy is essential for economic growth, creating jobs and opportunities for American families," the NRF stated, highlighting the direct link between import costs and the purchasing power of the average American consumer.
The legal crux of the Supreme Court’s decision rested on the limits of executive power. The nation’s highest court determined that the Trump administration had overstepped its constitutional authority by using the IEEPA—a 1977 law intended to give the president power to regulate commerce during national emergencies—as a tool for permanent, broad-scale industrial policy. By declaring these tariffs unconstitutional, the Court effectively sent a message that the power to tax and regulate international commerce remains primarily a function of the legislative branch. The case has now been remanded to the lower courts for formal dismissal, a move that theoretically halts the collection of these specific duties.
Despite the judicial win, the atmosphere in the retail sector remains one of cautious optimism tempered by pragmatic dread. Just hours after the ruling, President Trump took to social media and public addresses to condemn the Court’s decision, labeling it a "setback for American workers" and a "gift to foreign competitors." In a swift retaliatory move, the administration announced it would pivot to "alternative" legal mechanisms to maintain its protectionist agenda. Most notably, the President proposed a new, blanket 10% global tariff, suggesting that while one legal avenue had been closed, the administration’s "toolbox" for trade intervention remained full.
This rapid escalation has left analysts questioning whether the SCOTUS ruling will actually lead to lower prices or simply a different form of uncertainty. Steven Shemesh, a retail analyst for RBC Capital Markets, noted that the hope for a return to pre-tariff normalcy might be a "pipe dream." He suggested that the current administration’s commitment to trade rebalancing is so entrenched that if one tariff structure is dismantled, another will inevitably take its place. "It may have another look, shape, size, or smell, but I think it will end up looking similar," Shemesh warned, pointing out that the fundamental tension between globalized supply chains and nationalist trade policy remains unresolved.
For the NRF and its members—which range from mom-and-pop shops to behemoths like Walmart—the focus has now shifted to the logistics of recovery. A primary concern is the potential for refunds. Since the tariffs were deemed to have been enacted under an overreach of authority, billions of dollars in duties already paid by U.S. importers may now be subject to reimbursement. David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, acknowledged in a CNBC interview that the process of reclaiming these funds would be a monumental task. The NRF is urging the lower courts to establish a "seamless process" for these refunds, arguing that the capital returned to businesses would serve as a vital economic stimulus, allowing for reinvestment in infrastructure, workforce expansion, and price reductions for consumers who have felt the sting of inflation.
The stakes are particularly high for specific sectors like apparel and footwear, which have historically relied on intricate global networks for production. According to the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA), nearly 100% of all footwear sold in the United States is imported, making the industry uniquely vulnerable to trade barriers. Matt Priest, CEO of the FDRA, described the ruling as a "win" but emphasized that the journey is far from over. During an emergency conference call with over 300 member companies—including representatives from Nike, Crocs, and Puma—Priest noted that while the industry is upbeat about the limitation of "sweeping" executive powers, many questions remain regarding shipments currently in transit. Will goods hitting U.S. ports tomorrow be subject to the old rates, the new proposed 10% rate, or no duty at all?
The footwear industry’s struggle highlights the difficulty of "near-shoring" or "re-shoring" production. While the Trump administration has long advocated for bringing manufacturing back to U.S. soil, industry experts argue that the infrastructure and labor force required for mass footwear production simply do not exist domestically in a way that is economically viable. For years, companies have been diversifying their sourcing away from China due to rising labor costs and geopolitical tensions, moving instead to countries like Vietnam and Indonesia. However, these nations were also hit by the broad IEEPA tariffs, leaving retailers with few places to hide from rising costs.
The legal battle also brings to light the ongoing litigation from individual companies. In December, Costco Wholesale filed a high-profile lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, seeking a full refund of tariffs paid and an injunction against future duties. Costco argued that it faced irreparable financial harm and that the government had no right to retain funds collected under an unconstitutional mandate. While Costco has not yet commented on Friday’s specific ruling, their legal strategy appears vindicated by the Supreme Court’s stance on executive overreach. The outcome of Costco’s case could serve as a bellwether for how the government handles the potentially trillions of dollars in refund claims that could now flood the system.
Furthermore, the political timing of the ruling and the subsequent tariff announcement cannot be ignored. With midterm elections on the horizon, the administration is under pressure to balance its "America First" trade rhetoric with the reality of consumer inflation. David French of the NRF suggested that the administration might find it politically advantageous to expedite refunds as a way to curry favor with voters and businesses alike. However, the President’s immediate pivot to a new 10% tariff suggests that the administration views trade protectionism as a core campaign pillar that it is unwilling to abandon, regardless of judicial pushback.
As the retail industry digests the news, the consensus is that the "surgical" approach to tariffs mentioned by some trade groups may be the only path forward. Rather than broad, global duties that punish allies and adversaries alike, industry leaders are calling for a more nuanced trade policy that addresses specific trade imbalances without destabilizing the entire global economy. The FDRA and NRF have both expressed a desire to work with Congress to reclaim legislative oversight of trade, ensuring that future tariffs are debated openly and implemented with clear sunset clauses and economic impact assessments.
In conclusion, while the Supreme Court has provided a temporary reprieve and a significant legal precedent against executive overreach, the retail industry remains in a state of high alert. The "tool away from the president" that David French celebrated is just one of many in a vast regulatory arsenal. As the lower courts begin the work of dismantling the IEEPA tariff framework and the administration moves to erect new barriers, the American consumer remains caught in the middle. The coming months will determine whether the "economic boost" promised by the NRF will manifest as lower prices at the register, or if the costs of a renewed trade war will once again be passed down to the public. For now, the retail world watches the ports and the courts with equal measure of hope and apprehension.