The case, which challenges Trump’s sweeping tariffs imposed under emergency powers, has become a defining moment for business leaders navigating a volatile trade landscape already reshaped by uncertainty, inflation, and geopolitical rivalry. 

As former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women conference, the Supreme Court now faces a “hard question” about whether to disrupt a sitting president’s signature economic policy after it has already reshaped the global trade landscape. 

“Even if the tariffs had never been able to take effect, now that they have come in and changed the status quo, the court might ultimately really have pause and concern before disrupting the President’s economic policy in this way,” she told Fortune’s Michal Lev-Ram.

The potential economic fallout from reversing Trump’s tariff policy may ultimately guide the Court’s hand. “The government is coming to court and saying, ‘We would have to unwind billions or trillions of dollars. It could bankrupt our nation,’” Prelogar added. “It would be incredibly disruptive to try to scramble those eggs,” referring to the billions of dollars already collected and distributed under the policy.

Tariff controversy

Trump’s move to impose 10% reciprocal tariffs on all imports—rising to as high as 50% for major trading partners—under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) marked one of the most aggressive uses of executive trade authority in U.S. history. His administration has since reportedly collected $158 billion in tariffs, arguing that striking them down would “impossible to ever recover” and destabilize ongoing trade negotiations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimated that if the top court goes against the administration, the U.S. “would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” in an interview with NBC.

Lower courts have disagreed, ruling that Trump overstepped his statutory and constitutional bounds. In three separate opinions, federal judges concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose what amounts to a massive tax on imports. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 7–4 decision, said plainly that “absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes,” emphasizing that tariffs—long considered a congressional power—require clear legislative authorization.

If the Court strikes down the tariffs, companies could see immediate relief in import costs—but the economic ripple effects would be complex. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that overturning the tariffs would wipe out $2.8 trillion in projected government revenue through 2035, potentially forcing cuts or higher borrowing costs that could squeeze businesses elsewhere. 

‘Almost a coin toss’

Currently, U.S. consumers and businesses are feeling the weight of tariffs most, according to a report by Goldman Sachs. The analysis estimated U.S. consumers are shouldering up to 55% of the costs stemming from Trump’s tariffs, even though the president has repeatedly claimed that the tariffs on imports exclusively tax foreign enterprises. Goldman’s research also found that U.S. businesses pay 22% of the cost of the tariffs, while foreign exporters contribute only 18% of the cost. 

While Wall Street might initially celebrate tariff relief especially in heavily impacted sectors, broader uncertainty around U.S. trade policy could linger, especially as Trump has signaled he would pivot to other legal authorities, like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, to reimpose tariffs on specific industries should the Court not rule in his favor.

Even if the law is on the challengers’ side, the pragmatic economic and executive power concerns, according to Prelogar, make the case’s outcome “almost a coin toss.” Trade and legal experts previously predicted between a 70-80% chance the high court would rule against the Trump administration and expect a decision by the end of the year. According to them, the justices may not follow traditional ideological divides.

Whether Trump’s tariffs survive or fall, one outcome is certain: the decision will redefine how executives plan in an era where law and economics collide. The Court’s ruling, expected by year’s end, will either restore Congress’s trade prerogatives, or confirm that the president’s emergency powers can reach deep into the heart of global commerce.