On February 6th, just weeks before a Supreme Court ruling expected to trigger billions in tariff refunds, U.S. Customs switched from paper checks to electronic payments. This timely modernization suggests the government may have been preparing for the operational load of a massive payout event.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling against the president's broad reciprocal tariffs, the administration is expected to re-impose them using more targeted, sector-specific legal authorities. This means economic relief from lower tariffs will be short-lived, as the underlying protectionist policy stance remains.

The Supreme Court's ruling requires refunding over $100 billion in illegally collected tariffs to companies. If processed quickly, this massive cash injection into the economy could act as a pre-midterm stimulus, ironically providing a potential political benefit to the Trump administration despite its legal defeat.

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.

The Supreme Court ruling will trigger two massive waves of litigation. First, hundreds of thousands of companies will sue for refunds on billions in illegally collected tariffs. Second, new tariffs imposed under different authorities will face country-by-country legal challenges, creating a sustained boom for trade lawyers.

Despite having no legal claim, large retailers like Walmart are pressuring their suppliers to share tariff refunds. They use their immense purchasing power as leverage, threatening to delist products if suppliers don't share a portion of the government payout.

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.