Instead of immediately passing tariff costs to consumers, US corporations are initially absorbing the shock. They are mitigating the impact by reducing labor costs and accepting lower profitability, which explains the lag between tariff implementation and broad consumer inflation.

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.

The tariff war was not primarily about revenue but a strategic move to create an "artificial negotiating point." By imposing tariffs, the U.S. could then offer reductions in exchange for European countries committing to American technology and supply chains over China's growing, low-cost alternatives.

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.

The proposal to levy tariffs and then issue rebate checks is economically nonsensical. It creates massive bureaucratic leakage, making it more efficient to simply not have the tariffs. Furthermore, the policy uncertainty paralyzes businesses, creating non-economic costs that are more damaging than the direct financial impact of the tariffs.

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.

Because U.S. tariff levels are likely to remain stable regardless of legal challenges, the more critical factor for the long-term outlook is how companies adapt. Investors should focus on corporate responses in capital spending and supply chain adjustments rather than the tariff levels themselves.

Costco is suing the Trump administration over tariffs, not just as a legal strategy, but as a public relations move. It signals to customers that Costco will fight anyone, even the president, to uphold its core value proposition of saving people money.