Should the administration lose the Supreme Court case, it might shift to product-specific tariffs. This transition could introduce short-term market volatility, as the administration might initially propose high tariff levels as a negotiating tactic before settling on lower, more palatable rates.

A key legal defense for presidential tariff authority, highlighted in Supreme Court arguments, is the paradox that the president can enact a total trade embargo but is supposedly blocked from imposing a minor tariff. This reframes tariffs not as a separate power but as a lesser-included action within existing executive authority.

A Supreme Court loss on using one specific law (IEPA) for tariffs would not end the administration's ability to wage a trade war. The executive branch has other laws it can use to impose levies, such as those allowing temporary or retaliatory tariffs, limiting but not eliminating its power.

A contrarian investment opportunity exists in purchasing the legal claims from companies that paid tariffs under the Trump administration. These claims can be bought for 10-15 cents on the dollar, offering a significant return if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs unconstitutional and mandates a full refund from the government.

Even if the Supreme Court rules against the administration, it may not change U.S. tariff levels. The executive branch has alternative legal authorities, like Section 301, that it can use to maintain the same tariffs, making a court defeat less of a market-moving event than it appears.

Stocks most affected by tariffs showed a muted reaction to a pending Supreme Court decision. This suggests investors believe the executive branch could use other authorities to maintain tariffs and that any potential refunds from an overturn would take years to materialize, diminishing the news's immediate market impact.

While the base case is that the President would replace tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court, there's a growing possibility he won't. The administration could use the ruling as a politically convenient way to reduce tariffs and address voter concerns about affordability without appearing to back down on trade policy.

The legal battle over President Trump's tariffs and President Biden's student loan forgiveness both hinge on the "major questions doctrine." This Supreme Court principle asserts that if the executive branch exercises a power with vast economic and political impact based on ambiguous statutory language, the Court will rule against it, demanding explicit authorization from Congress.

The impending 107% tariff on Italian pasta is based on legally sound anti-dumping laws targeting a specific product. This is distinct from Trump's broader, country-specific tariffs, which were enacted via a national emergency declaration and are more likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. This signals a key legal risk difference for global businesses.